The Assembly met at 10:30 am (Speaker [Mr Maskey] in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes' silence.

Assembly Business

Kellie Armstrong: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Alex Maskey: I will take your point of order in a minute, Ms Armstrong. I just want to deal with a couple of matters first.

23 February 2022

Alex Maskey: The first item of business in the Order Paper is the consideration of business not concluded on Wednesday 23 February. All business was concluded when the Assembly adjourned yesterday so there is nothing to consider under that item.

Further Consideration Stage: Principles of Debate and Amendments

Alex Maskey: Before we commence the business in the Order Paper, I remind Members that we are dealing today with the Further Consideration Stage of the Integrated Education Bill. I urge Members to try to stick to, and focus on, the amendments that have been tabled for today's debate. We have had a number of days of significant and substantial debate on the Bill and its amendments, including at Consideration Stage. It is right and proper that full scrutiny takes place, but I urge Members to focus on the matter at hand, which is to discuss the amendments that have been tabled for today's Further Consideration Stage.
Ms Armstrong, you may make your point of order now.

Kellie Armstrong: Mr Speaker, my point of order relates to Standing Order 37, which deals with the Further Consideration Stage of Bills.
For my private Member's Bill — the Integrated Education Bill — the Minister has chosen not to follow convention and has not tabled any technical and consequential amendments. Only Ministers have access to the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC). Therefore, I, as the Bill sponsor, was not permitted access to OLC's advice and could not ask that consequential amendments be drafted by it.
The Assembly's publication 'Deconstructing Legislation' states:
"Duty to put the Bill into good shape

If an amendment is passed against the Minister’s advice on a Division, the Minister has a duty to take such steps as are necessary by way of later amendment to put it into an effective form in which it achieves the stated policy of the proposer of the original amendment."
It goes on to say:
"This is because even though the amendment did not represent the Minister’s policy, once it is clear that the amendment is going to reach the statute book and become law, Ministers have a rule of law duty to citizens to ensure that the statue book is in a clear and certain state. In particular, if there are consequential amendments needed to other parts of the Bill or statute book in order to make the original amendment work, the Minister should arrange for those to be made. Of course, compared to Westminster the procedures of the Assembly only offer limited opportunities for this kind of phased amendment – but it should be possible in appropriate cases to have tidying-up amendments at Further Consideration Stage."
'Craies on Legislation', which is the authoritative text on the nature, process, effect and interpretation of legislation, says in 5.2.22:
"The Government acquire a duty to make such other amendments to the Bill as are required to give effect to the obvious intention of the amendment carried against it. That may amount to tabling an amendment to perfect the first amendment or to tabling other amendments elsewhere in the Bill to deal with consequential matters."
Mr Speaker, I am asking for clarification regarding Standing Order 37 on whether a Minister is required to comply with a rule of law duty to table tidying-up or consequential amendments or if access will be given to a Bill sponsor to appropriate legal advice to enable that Member to table those amendments to put the Bill into good shape. Convention can be and has been ignored.
Mr Speaker, the clarification provided on this point of order will have no bearing whatsoever on my private Member's Bill. The Integrated Education Bill is about to have its Further Consideration Stage. However, I feel that it is my moral duty to ask for clarification on the processes for Standing Order 37 on behalf of the Members of this Assembly who may bring forward a private Member's Bill in the future.

Alex Maskey: I thank the Member for advance notice of her point of order. The issue is one of simple and straightforward facts, and I want to outline some of them.
There is, for good reason, a convention across these islands, that, as the custodians of Departments responsible for implementing the law, Ministers will table tidying-up amendments at Further Consideration Stage to provide for a clear and certain statute book. It is understood that the Assembly can pass amendments to deliver a particular policy objective but that Departments will want to put those in terms that are consistent with the existing statute book. Tabling what might be called "tidying-up amendments" does not require a Minister to endorse a Bill. Indeed, in such cases, a Minister fully reserves the right to seek to persuade the House to reject a Bill at its Final Stage. We have seen that happen in the Assembly before, and it is perfectly legitimate that that does happen and is provided for.
Regardless of a Minister's opinion on an individual Bill, there is an expectation that a Minister will respect the decisions that the Assembly has taken. That is an important aspect of our parliamentary culture, and it is concerning if it is not followed. So, although there is no requirement in law or in Standing Orders that a Minister should table amendments at Further Consideration Stage, it is disappointing if the convention is not observed. Ultimately, however, it is for a Minister to determine and defend what amendments he or she does or does not table. It is something then, ultimately, for Members to raise directly with a Minister.
There is no legal or Standing Order requirement for a Minister to do so, although it is preferable that tidying-up amendments be tabled at Further Consideration Stage, to ensure consistency in the future statute book, if a Bill is passed and accepted by the House. As I said, that happens across these islands in all jurisdictions, so it is disappointing that that practice would not be followed here. However it is entirely a matter for a Minister to decide whether he or she wishes to table amendments. Thank you very much.
Members, please take your ease for a moment before we move on to the next item of business.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Beggs] in the Chair)

Private Members' Business

Integrated Education Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Roy Beggs: I call Kellie Armstrong to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Integrated Education Bill.
Moved.—[Ms Armstrong.]

Roy Beggs: Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are two groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn.
The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 4, Nos 7 to 10 and Nos 21 to 28, which deal with definitions and supporting information, duties and regulations. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 5 and 6 and Nos 11 to 20, which deal with consultation, strategy and decision-making. I remind Members who intend to speak in the debates on the two groups of amendments that they should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group has been completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each amendment will be put without further debate. If that is clear, we will proceed.
We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 4, Nos 7 to 10 and Nos 21 to 28. I call Kellie Armstrong to move amendment No 1 and to address the other amendments in the group.
Clause 3 (Advisory body)

Kellie Armstrong: I beg to move amendment No 1:
In page 2, line 15, leave out “may” and insert “must”.The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:
No 2: In page 2, line 17, leave out second “or” and insert “and if required”. — [Ms Armstrong.]No 3: In clause 5, page 2, line 30, after first “reference” insert—“in any provision of Northern Ireland legislation” — [Ms Armstrong.]No 4: In clause 5, page 2, line 30, after “education” insert—“(including support for the development of integrated education)”. — [Ms Armstrong.]No 7: In clause 6, page 3, line 4, leave out “and facilitate” and insert “, facilitate and support”. — [Ms Armstrong.]No 8: In clause 6, page 3, line 7, leave out “and facilitate” and insert “, facilitate and support”. — [Ms Armstrong.]No 9: In clause 6, page 3, line 25, after “education” insert—“including in respect of its duty to encourage, facilitate and support integrated education,”. — [Ms Armstrong.]No 10: In clause 7, page 3, line 35, at end insert—“(2) The active fulfilment of duties in respect of support for integrated education conferred on education bodies by this Act (or regulations made under it) shall not prejudice or subordinate their duties in respect of promoting shared education or the due discharge of their continuing statutory duties under other enactments including the Shared Education (Northern Ireland) Act 2016.” — [Mrs D Kelly.]No 21: In clause 11, page 7, line 12, at end insert—&quot;(3A) Provision under subsection (3) may, in particular, include supplementary, incidental or consequential amendments of any Northern Ireland legislation (including amendments equivalent or similar to those effected by sections 4 and 13).” — [Ms Armstrong.]No 22: In clause 13, page 7, line 31, after “pupils” insert—“and insert ‘and to provide support for integrated education’”. — [Ms Armstrong.]No 23: In clause 13, page 7, line 35, at end insert—“(2A) In Article 71(8) of that Order (Proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained integrated status) for ‘be attended by reasonable numbers of both Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils’ substitute ‘provide integrated education’.” — [Ms Armstrong.]No 24: In clause 13, page 7, line 35, at end insert—“(2B) In Article 79(2) of that Order (Significant changes to grant-maintained integrated schools) for ‘be attended by reasonable numbers of both Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils’ substitute ‘provide integrated education’.” — [Ms Armstrong.]No 25: In clause 13, page 7, line 35, at end insert—“(2C) In Article 81(3)(d) of that Order (Withdrawal of grant by Department) for ‘attended by reasonable numbers of both Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils’ substitute ‘providing integrated education’.” — [Ms Armstrong.]No 26: In clause 13, page 7, line 35, at end insert—“(2D) In Article 88 of that Order (Management of controlled integrated schools) for ‘attract to the school reasonable numbers of both Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils’ substitute ‘ensure the provision of integrated education’.” — [Ms Armstrong.]No 27: In clause 13, page 7, line 35, at end insert—“(2E) In Article 92(6) of that Order (Proposals for acquisition of controlled integrated status) for ‘be attended by reasonable numbers of both Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils’ substitute ‘provide integrated education’.” — [Ms Armstrong.]No 28: In clause 13, page 7, line 35, at end insert—“(2F) In Article 97 of that Order (Significant changes to controlled integrated schools) for ‘be attended by reasonable numbers of both Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils’ substitute ‘provide integrated education’.” — [Ms Armstrong.]

Kellie Armstrong: All 16 amendments in group 1 are tidying-up and consequential amendments for the Integrated Education Bill. As others have asked me to, I will explain to the House why I have tabled the amendments and why they have not, in accordance with normal convention, been tabled by the Minister.
I was invited by the Minister of Education to meet her departmental officials on 31 January. Also attending the meeting were two representatives of the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC). It was a productive meeting, and the tidying-up and consequential amendments were discussed. It was agreed that I would take forward amendments to clause 6 to tidy it up and that OLC would prepare the consequential amendments for the Department and the Minister.
The deadline for amendments at Further Consideration Stage was 9.30 am on Wednesday 2 February. The time passed, and, when the notice of amendments was published, it was a shock to see that the Minister had not tabled any of the consequential amendments. I reached out to the Minister and to the Department to ask why, and I received an email from the Department that stated:
"Ultimately, our role as officials is to provide advice to the Minister. The discussion and subsequent proposed amendments were considered by the Minister, and she took the decision not to table them, as, in her view, the Bill remains fundamentally flawed."
Realising that a number of consequential amendments to the Bill had not been tabled, I asked the Speaker if I could remove the Further Consideration Stage from the following week's Order Paper in order to give me time either to get the amendments from the Minister or to have the amendments drawn up using a professional drafter.
I checked with the Minister again to ask whether she would table the consequential amendments, as discussed on 31 January, and I confirmed that the new deadline for amendments was Friday 18 February. She confirmed that the scheduling of Further Consideration Stage had come at relatively short notice. Subsequently, the consequential amendments were not tabled by the Minister by the second deadline of 9.30 am on Friday 18 February.
Even though I had asked the Minister to provide the amendments, as is the convention, I could not be sure that the convention would be followed. I therefore engaged a professional drafter, along with the skills of our Bill Office, to bring forward the technical amendments in group 1. I bring to the attention of the House the fact that the amendments were discussed and agreed in principle with the Department and OLC on 31 January.
I will turn to the amendments. Amendment Nos 1 and 2 are to clause 3. Following concerns raised in earlier debates regarding the continued need for the Department to consult "the" advisory body for integrated education — I have not mentioned the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE) in the Bill because I am not entitled to do so; it is not part of a statutory body — I have proposed to change "may" in line 15 to "must" and to remove "or" in line 17 and insert "and if required".
This means that the Department must consult the advisory body and, if required, any other body that the Department considers appropriate.
Amendment Nos 3 and 4 relate to clause 5 and deal with the meaning of support in respect of integrated education. Following the meeting with departmental officials on 31 January, it was agreed in relation to amendment No 3 adding to "reference" to clarify that the meaning of support in relation to integrated education applies to:
"any provision of Northern Ireland legislation".
It is a technical amendment to ensure read-across to other legislation.
Amendment No 4 was also discussed with the Department. It adds explicit confirmation that "support" includes:
"support for the development of integrated education".
Amendment Nos 7, 8 and 9 tidy up clause 6, which is the clause added by the Minister at Consideration Stage. The amendments to clause 6 simply add the term "support", a term already agreed and voted for by the House, to the language of the Minister's amendment. I have not changed in any way the intention of the clause as introduced at Consideration Stage and voted for by the House.
Amendment No 10 is an SDLP amendment, which I will support as it clarifies that the Department, in carrying out its duties in respect of integrated education, shall not prejudice or subordinate its duties to shared education.
Amendment No 21 gives the Department an enabling power to make by regulation any consequential amendments that may arise.
Amendment Nos 23 to 28 are technical amendments that have been discussed with the Department and the OLC. They tidy up references contained in the following articles of the 1989 Order: article 88, the management of controlled integrated schools; articles 71 and 92, both of which deal with proposals for acquisition of integrated status; articles 79 and 97, which deal with significant changes to grant-maintained integrated and controlled integrated schools; and article 81, which covers the withdrawal of grant. 
 . 
A letter from the Minister, dated 31 January, stated:
"Leaving those provisions of the 1989 Order as they are would result in the 1989 Order being inconsistent in major respects. While Article 66(2) of the 1989 Order as amended by the bill would impose requirements relating to the management of grant-maintained integrated schools that would engage the bill’s definition of 'integrated education', the following provisions of the 1989 Order would remain as they are, not engaging that definition and instead referring to 'reasonable numbers of both Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils'".
That means that the requirement for grant-maintained integrated schools and controlled integrated schools are aligned.
By tabling these tidying and technical amendments, I have ensured that the changes discussed with the Department and the OLC on 31 January have been completed and that the appropriate consequential amendments, which would, under normal convention, have been tabled by the Minister, have been introduced.

Nicola Brogan: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I support the group 1 amendments, both those proposed by the sponsor and amendment No 10, which was tabled by the SDLP.
I thank the Bill's sponsor for acting on the issues that arose at Consideration Stage and for bringing forward the necessary solutions through largely technical amendments.
It is fair to say that, up to this point, progressive parties have worked together on this legislation, which would ultimately help to ensure that families who wish to send their children to an integrated school would have that choice. Despite what some parties say about the Bill, it comes down to choice. We have a diverse and often complex education system. Currently, however, only 7% of pupils are educated in an integrated school.
The Good Friday Agreement placed a duty on the Department of Education to "encourage and facilitate" integrated education. We want to build on that and see more progress being made. We want to ensure that the unmet demand for integrated education is met and that families across the North have the choice of an integrated school place available to them. Bringing more children and young people from different backgrounds together through the education system is a positive thing for society, and it will help to promote diversity and respect from a young age.
I support these amendments, and I urge other Members to do the same.

Diane Dodds: At the outset of my remarks in this part of the debate, I want to take a moment to re-emphasise and reiterate that it is in all our interests to see a Northern Ireland that is more peaceful and more prosperous and where our children can learn and play together. I believe that everyone in the House wants to see a society where we value education as a means to get a good job, provide for our families and provide a decent standard of life, irrespective of our perceived religious, social or political background.
However, if those are the values that we want to espouse in the House, the Bill is not the mechanism by which to achieve them. The Bill will simply support one part of our education system and discriminate against all others. I am somewhat bemused — maybe I am "befuddled", if I may use a word that my friend used the other day — by the sponsor's reference to the Minister not tabling tidying-up amendments. It is our view that the Bill is unamendable. The Bill is inequitable and discriminatory. It discriminates against the controlled and maintained sectors. Some day, MLAs will have to decide whether they will stand up and support the 93% of children who are educated in the controlled and maintained sectors.
Throughout the debates on the Bill, I have made my position abundantly clear. The Bill is not a vehicle to promote real inclusion. Where inclusion in our education sector is concerned, I reiterate the point that I made in previous debates that, from the evidence and figures that were presented to the Committee, 61% of pupils in the controlled sector are Protestant, 10% are Catholic and 29% do not identify as either. I would fairly argue that that is a very integrated sector of education.
Many arguments have been put forward in the House in support of the Bill. Some of those arguments were about parental choice and the demand for integrated education. I will share this point with the House, because I think that it is interesting and that the House will be interested in it: from the admission figures for 2020-21, the two areas in which there was a decline in first-preference choices were the integrated sector, where the decline was by almost 15%, and the Irish-medium sector, where the decline was by 12%. There was a small increase in the controlled sector —

A Member: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Roy Beggs: Order. I encourage the Member —

Diane Dodds: Sorry. Yes, of course.

Roy Beggs: — to reference the amendments. This is not a Second Stage debate. I encourage the Member to reference the amendments in the group 1 debate.

Diane Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is vital that we have the context for the amendments. The sponsor of the Bill indicated that these are simply tidying-up amendments, but they actually strengthen the support for integrated education. As I have said in many debates in the House and throughout many hours of Committee discussions on the Bill, I will support every sector in the education system but I will not support one sector having additional duties in law over another. That is fundamentally —

Kellie Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Diane Dodds: I will in a moment, when I am finished.
That is what the Bill fundamentally does.
The group 1 amendments, including amendment Nos 3 and 4, actually strengthen the position of the sector by, as the sponsor said, changing the "may" to "must" where the duties on the Department are concerned. Amendment Nos 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 all point to strengthening the duty to support. I accept, from what the Bill sponsor said, that that duty was supported at Consideration Stage, and I accept that parties in the House — the SDLP, Sinn Féin, Alliance and the Ulster Unionists — all voted to add an additional duty of support for that sector above all other sectors, so the Member is tidying up the Bill by including the word "support" in amendment Nos 7, 8 and 9. However, that does not weaken my resolve that, in fact, I cannot support the amendments, particularly amendment No 3, which extends the scope of support to:
"any provision of Northern Ireland legislation".
That extends the duty quite significantly.
My party will not support the sponsor's amendments in group 1. We are somewhat bemused by the fact that, given our opposition to the Bill, we would table amendments to actually do so. I am almost finished. Does the sponsor want to make an intervention?

Kellie Armstrong: Absolutely. Thank you very much for giving way. I am delighted to hear Mrs Dodds say that she is willing for all sectors to be treated exactly the same. I look forward, at some stage, to an authority like the Education Authority or the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), which are planning and employing authorities, being provided for integrated education, because it does not exist for either integrated or Irish-medium education.

Diane Dodds: The Member has a point. I would go further. I would say that, actually, the controlled sector's being amalgamated into the Education Authority means that there is no specific authority that deals only with that sector. Therefore, I would like to see the position of controlled sector schools being significantly strengthened in the education system. You have a point.
The Bill is not inclusive. It will not promote the integration of children all together. It ignores the value of the shared education projects that we have been involved in. We will not support the group 1 amendments.

Dolores Kelly: I welcome the fact that the Bill has reached this stage, even at this late stage of the mandate. The SDLP is, and has always been, committed to all our children having the opportunity to be educated in a truly world-class education system, and is fully supportive of the Executive's decision, as part of the New Decade, New Approach agreement, to commission an independent review of the education system. We look forward to the report that the review will produce, and recognise that it may make recommendations that will require legislative change, even to some matters that are as recent as the Bill that we are considering.
The SDLP is striving to build an education system that not only promotes the highest academic standards, but enables every child to reach the limits of their potential so that they may become caring and contributing members of society, and an education system that is reflective of a much more diverse society than ever before.
I want to raise some issues with the amendments, and hopefully the Member will address them in her concluding remarks on the group. There are concerns that the word "must" that is inserted by amendment No 1 with regard to consultation will relate to any function, and about whether that would place too onerous a duty on the Department of Education to consult. I hope that I have got that right: it is amendment No 1 to clause 3, page 2, line 15, if that helps. I wonder about the rationale behind that, and whether it has any implications for financial commitments that may bring a nugatory benefit.
We are not really sure what amendment No 2 is about. We would be keen to hear what legal authority that amendment is based on and the difference between the wording, and whether "and if required" is stronger than "or".
We absolutely support the fact that amendment No 3 is a tidying-up amendment, and contextualises clause 5 more appropriately by ensuring that it is applied in the context of Northern Ireland legislation. I understand that it follows advice that was provided to the Member by the OLC.
It therefore has a sound legal basis. Similarly, we appreciate that amendment No 4 is a tidying-up amendment that adds to the Bill.

Steve Aiken: First, I apologise that it is not the usual handsome Robbie Butler standing here making these remarks, but I shall do my best as I go through them.

Diane Dodds: [Laughter.]

Steve Aiken: Do not laugh. I can give you a UUP application form any time, if you want to come and join. Feel free.
[Laughter.]

Dolores Kelly: One for everybody in the audience.

Steve Aiken: [Laughter.]
Steady, team. Come on. Let us concentrate.
I need to make a declaration of interest. I am a member of the board of governors of Kilbride Central Primary School. I have met a considerable number of heads, teachers and other governors about the Bill, and they have expressed their concerns to me about it. I will represent those people as I go through my remarks.
I will speak specifically to the group 1 amendments, which relate to definitions and supporting information, duties and regulations. The Ulster Unionist Party will not support amendment Nos 1, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 21 to 28.
Our issue with amendment No 1 is to do with the words and how they are used, and we do not feel that we are in a position to support it.
Amendment No 3 appears to be a technical amendment. It is required to make the Bill more legislatively coherent, and that is why we support it.

Chris Lyttle: I thank the Member for giving way. Given the extent of the amendments that the Ulster Unionist Party will be opposing, does he accept that that may, in effect, equate to its opposing the Bill?

Steve Aiken: I thank the Member for his intervention. He could indeed take that view.
We have two issues with amendment No 4. The first is with the definition of the word "support" that is currently in clause 5. I hope that our amendment Nos 5 and 6 will address that. The second issue is with the fact that the amendment is further elevating and giving primacy to integrated education, over and above the provisions that exist for other education sectors.
Amendment Nos 7, 8 and 9 seek to introduce the word "support" into the Minister's new clause that was ordered to stand part at Consideration Stage.

Chris Lyttle: Will the Member give way?

Steve Aiken: Certainly.

Chris Lyttle: In opposing the word "support", does the Member not support integrated education?

Steve Aiken: The issue here is about having an education system for all our children in Northern Ireland in which they can all be educated together equally. It is not about putting one sector of that education system above the others. That has to be the key thing here, because one issue with the Bill is that it is putting the integrated education sector above all the others. That is not where we should be.

Kellie Armstrong: Will the Member give way?

Steve Aiken: Certainly.

Kellie Armstrong: I agreed with Mrs Dodds earlier, and I agree with you, that we should not be putting one sector above others. The Bill does not do that, because I have not asked for the Integrated Education Bill to have additional things, such as an employing authority, a planning authority or any of the other mechanisms from which it is currently excluded. The sector does not have the same as every other. We are simply asking that 69 schools have a strategy.

Steve Aiken: I thank the Bill sponsor for her remarks. She feels very strongly about that, but we feel very strongly that the amendments are putting the integrated education sector above the other sectors, and that is not something that we can support.

Chris Lyttle: Will the Member give way briefly?

Steve Aiken: Very briefly.

Chris Lyttle: The Member has attached great emphasis to the amendments placing the integrated education sector above other sectors, which is very strong language and has clearly struck a chord publicly. Will the Member detail in what way he assesses that specifically to be the case? To what extent does it place the sector above other sectors?

Steve Aiken: I will take the opportunity to do that as I go through the amendments. The Member will be very clear about our position when we discuss the amendments.
Amendment Nos 7, 8 and 9 seek to introduce the word "support" into clause 6, which was added to the Bill at Consideration Stage. The current definition of "support", as defined by the Bill, needs refined, hence our amendments, which will be debated later. In their current form, we cannot support amendment Nos 7, 8 and 9, as they will create a statutory duty for the Department to elevate integrated schools above those in other sectors.

Chris Lyttle: In what way?

Steve Aiken: Please do not speak from a sedentary position, Mr Lyttle.

Roy Beggs: Order. I ask that one Member speak at a time. If Members wish to intervene, they can ask the Member who is speaking to give way.

Steve Aiken: Thank you very much indeed.

Jim Allister: Will the Member give way?

Steve Aiken: Certainly.

Jim Allister: On the Alliance Party's denial of the supremacy in the Bill, does the Member agree that the fundamental statutory duty that applies across education is that in article 3 of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which states:
"It shall be the duty of the Department—

	(a) to promote the education of the people of Northern Ireland"?
The Bill, however, creates unique statutory obligations for one sector only. Is that not the truth of it?

Steve Aiken: I thank the Member for his intervention. Quite clearly, that is the implication and intent. Across Northern Ireland, we want to see all our children being educated together rather than one sector being promoted above the others. Talking to the amendment, anyone who has had conversations with many of the school principals and members of boards of governors across the piece will know that that is something that comes across very clearly. There is concern about one particular part of the education system being put above the others. Under the Bill, they will not all be equal or, indeed, together.

Pat Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Steve Aiken: Certainly.

Pat Sheehan: At Consideration Stage, I made the point that if a parent wants to send their child to a school in either the controlled sector or the maintained sector, invariably they will get into a school in that sector. They might not get into their first choice of school, but they will get into a school in the sector. On the other hand, in the case of integrated education and Irish-medium education, there are children who may not be able to get into a school in the sector that they want to get into. In that situation, there is a disadvantage to those children who want to attend schools in those sectors. Is it not right, therefore, for the Assembly to take measures to address that by passing legislation that ensures that all sectors are put on an equal footing?

Steve Aiken: I agree: all sectors should be put on an equal footing. Many MLAs will talk about other areas, but I will talk specifically about South Antrim, where not all our children have the opportunity to go to their first choice of school or, indeed, their second choice of school. One of our real concerns is that, by taking one education sector and putting it above the others, we will be creating a system that will not be beneficial to our children.
Amendment Nos 21 and 22 are predicated on the definition of support in the Bill, which we cannot support in its current form.
Amendment Nos 23 to 28 seek to change the references to, and definitions of, integrated education in the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. In the debate at Consideration Stage, we articulated our opposition to the change in definition, which would move its prime focus away from educating pupils from different backgrounds together to one that focuses more on school ethos. We have always advocated for pupils to be educated together in an organic and natural integration, but the new definition dilutes that. We appreciate that those amendments are consequential. However, their tabling at this stage further highlights the far-reaching impact of changing the definition, and that is not something that we can support.

Roy Beggs: I call Robin Newton.

Robin Newton: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought that I was being called out of order, there. Anyway, thank you.
Like my colleague Mrs Dodds, I oppose amendment Nos 1 to 28 as detailed on the Marshalled List. Mrs Dodds referred in particular to amendment Nos 1 and 2 to clause 3 and amendment No 5 as amendments that give us real cause for concern.
We opposed the Bill from the very beginning; at its Second Stage. The Bill has given us extreme concern and it is causing concern in the wider school and education community. I want to say, from the beginning, that we are not opposed to integrated education. I have said it every time I have spoken on the Integrated Education Bill, and I think that I speak for everyone and certainly my colleagues on the Education Committee. It is something that we would encourage and, in fact, personally, have encouraged through the selection of the schools for our children, when we wanted to ensure that integrated education and contact with pupils from different backgrounds would be a feature.
At Further Consideration Stage, 28 amendments have been submitted. In this group alone, there are 16. That surely must give concern to the wider public. Surely, it must give concern to everyone in the Chamber that such important legislation, which will have an impact on our education system, the Catholic sector and the controlled sector, and, indeed, at a time when we are coming forward with an independent review of education, is subject to such amendment. Surely that must give concern to everyone in the Chamber. When you start to change words, at this stage, from "may" to "must" and add nearly a paragraph, in one case, to the Bill, surely it must give everyone concern.
In the wider context, who would have thought that the moderator of the Presbyterian Church would take it upon himself, presumably with support from the Church, to place an article in the 'Belfast Telegraph' expressing concerns about this Bill? With the resources that the Presbyterian Church has, and I know that it is the case for the Catholic Church as well —

Kellie Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way and for bringing up the point. I would have thought that the Presbyterian Church would have access to the Assembly website and therefore to my contact details, because writing to the 'News Letter' as opposed to the Bill sponsor to try to influence the content of the Bill was not really going to work.

Robin Newton: I thank the Member for her intervention.

Jim Allister: Will the Member give way?

Robin Newton: I will.

Jim Allister: Does the Member agree that a critical point made by the moderator in his correspondence was:
"The Bill before the Assembly seeks to significantly change the policy and direction of the Department of Education without adequate consultation with key stakeholders or the necessary Equality Impact Assessment".
Is that not one of the fatal flaws of the Bill: it railroaded and ignored other sectors, and the moderator quite rightly pointed that out?

Robin Newton: I thank the Member for his intervention and the Bill sponsor for her intervention. The quotation that Mr Allister gave from the article was one that I had underlined.

Chris Lyttle: I thank the Member for giving way. Will the Member confirm that the Education Committee, in its five-month Committee Stage consultation, met directly with the Transferor Representatives’ Council, which included representation from the Presbyterian Church, and the Controlled Schools' Support Council, the representative body for controlled schools?

Roy Beggs: Order. I urge Members to reference the amendments in this group.

Chris Lyttle: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. That is the second time that you have intervened substantially on an intervention on a matter of fact from me, whilst other speeches are meandering to and fro across the principles of the Bill.

Roy Beggs: Order. Is the Member challenging the Chair?
I have endeavoured to give everyone a degree of flexibility in their introductions before they make their remarks on any amendment. You were straying completely from the amendments and dealing with a reference that someone had made. I want everyone to be aware that the debate is about the amendments, not about some wider principles.
I invite Mr Newton.

Robin Newton: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for that ruling. Can I just deal with the point made by the Bill's sponsor? I will reflect on the point made, although you have spoken to the Member.
Yes, indeed, the Presbyterian Church made strong representation and expressed its opposition or, as I understand it, its concerns, at least, to Committee members at that stage of the Bill's transition. Having said that, I can only presume that the article was written by the moderator on the basis that he sees the Bill continuing its progress through the Assembly —.

Roy Beggs: Order. I encourage the Member to reference his comments to the amendments in the section. I am trying to give the same direction to everyone, so make sure that, when referring to someone else, it is relevant to the amendments in the section.

Robin Newton: Yes. Sorry. I thought I actually had, at the commencement, indicated my concern about all the amendments in group 1, and, indeed, made reference specifically to a number of them. I was reacting to the points made, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Allister stole my thunder with one quotation, but there is another quotation from the article where the opposition of the Presbyterian Church is predicated on what is in the Bill, particularly the amendments in group 1. The quotation is:
"How then can the Education Authority (EA), with a board comprised of representatives from all education sectors, be asked to support and facilitate one over and above the others?"
That is how the moderator and the Presbyterian Church see the Bill.
I have already made the point that Further Consideration Stage should be about tweaking amendments, not major changes to the Bill. Also, Ms Armstrong, the sponsor of the Bill, indicated that the Church had the opportunity to make representations, but there is a major gap in the consultation by the Bill sponsor. Had she done that consultation, we would not have arrived at —.

Kellie Armstrong: Thank you very much for giving way. I know that we are due to be speaking about the amendments, but, just to be clear, I could not have consulted on the content of the Bill, because that then leaves my hands and goes into the process for the Education Committee to consult on. I consulted on the principles considered in advance of putting forward the Bill for drafting, so the actual Bill was consulted on in the way it is supposed to be: by the House, through the Education Committee.

Roy Beggs: Members, again, I am trying to ensure that the debate does not get into a Second Stage debate. We are here to deal with the Further Consideration Stage and the specific amendments, not the generalities of the Bill or how the consultation occurred unless they are relevant to the amendments.
I invite Mr Newton to continue the debate on the group 1 amendments.

Robin Newton: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Diane Dodds: Will the Member give way?

Robin Newton: I will give way.

Diane Dodds: It is worthwhile clearing this up. Will the Member agree, particularly in relation to the amendments but also to the Bill in general, that most of those who speak about consultation are speaking about the lack of consultation before the Bill was published? The Bill 's sponsor has indicated that she relied on a consultation process from 2016-17. It is normal process —

Roy Beggs: Order.

Diane Dodds: — to have a consultation on a Bill —

Roy Beggs: Order.

Diane Dodds: — and then publish the Bill.

Roy Beggs: Order, please.

Diane Dodds: Thank you.

Roy Beggs: Order. I am trying to be fair to everyone. It is clear that reference is being made to wider consultation issues: we are here to debate the amendments in group 1. I urge all Members to have that debate today and not to rerun previous debates. That is what Further Consideration Stage is about. I call Mr Newton again.

Robin Newton: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not realise that I was so controversial
[Laughter.]
Anyway, I have nearly finished my contribution on the amendments.
The Bill and these amendments do nothing to reassure the wider community. There is the lack of consultation that Mrs Dodds referred to and the poor drafting of the Bill. None of the amendments that have been proposed give any comfort to the moderator, the Catholic maintained sector, the controlled sector or principals and parents in the wider community. I will maybe wait to see whether it is the case, but I have not seen a statement from the integrated sector wholly supporting the Bill.

Harry Harvey: As we come to the final legislative stages of the Bill, we are very swiftly entering the last chance saloon for Members to speak up for the education sectors set to be left behind thanks to the Bill.
I do not need to rehearse the debates at previous sittings. The comment was made that the Bill has been rushed, and rushed legislation never makes for good legislation, not least when it deals with such major reform. The fact that the Bill sponsor has proposed amendments at this late stage should ring alarm bells with those in this place. Not just one or two but 10 further amendments have been proposed by the Bill sponsor. Unfortunately, not one of them deals with the core issue of the negative effect of the legislation on other sectors.
The Bill is full of and overwhelming in its positive action for the integrated sector. Amendment Nos 4, 7, 8 and 9 will bolster that, and facilitation, support and encouragement of the integrated sector will run through the legislation. As we have stressed before, we are not against positive action for the integrated sector. However, we are against creating hierarchies and state-sponsored discrimination between young people depending on what school they wish to attend.
To support the amendments and the Bill is to say that pupils who attend maintained or controlled schools are less worthy of support than those who attend an integrated school. I am sure that many would refute those comments, but I point them to the Bill, as amended, which is the biggest and most fundamental piece of education reform here for decades. I ask these simple questions: where is the encouragement, facilitation and support for the rest of our education system? What about the 93% of children across the Province who are educated outside the integrated sector?
In amendment No 14 from Mr Butler, we see an attempt to address what will be the outworkings of the Bill. Of course, there will be a detriment to other sectors. As the Department —

Roy Beggs: Order. I draw the Member's attention to the fact that amendment No 14 is in group 2. That debate is yet to come.

Harry Harvey: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
As the Department and the Minister have told us ad nauseam, the money will have to come from somewhere else in education. I am interested to know where, the supporters of the Bill believe, the cuts should be made.
It is now the time to decide. There can be no more sitting on the fence: either Members support discrimination against the controlled and maintained sectors or they do not; either they are willing to see the popular and respected schools in their constituencies disadvantaged or they are not.

Chris Lyttle: Alliance supports integrated education and an education system that delivers equal opportunity for all children to realise their unique talent and ability in a united community for all. We support the Integrated Education Bill and, indeed, the promotion of educating people together.
I will support all the group 1 amendments. It is extremely disappointing that the Education Minister has broken parliamentary convention in relation to the Integrated Education Bill by not tabling amendments drafted by the Office of the Legislative Counsel. Assembly Members were, for example, provided with an email from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs detailing the technical amendments needed to his Climate Change (No. 2) Bill. It is my understanding that the Education Department was working with the Bill sponsor, which begs this question: what changed? Why did the Education Minister decide to break parliamentary convention, and is that a serious lack of good faith on her part? I am aware that the Executive had asked the Education Minister to work with the Bill sponsor, and, as I say, it is extremely disappointing that the Minister appears to have ignored that agreement.
The group 1 amendments appear to be largely technical amendments that, as set out by the Bill sponsor, were discussed and agreed in principle with the Education Department and the OLC. They are tidying amendments that ensure that the changes discussed with the Department and the OLC have been completed and are appropriate consequential amendments that would have, under normal parliamentary convention, been tabled by the Education Minister.
The extent of the skulduggery, misrepresentation and, indeed, opposition to the Bill is genuinely saddening. The DUP has been consistent in its opposition to the Integrated Education Bill, although the Ulster Unionist Party voting against support for integrated education today is something of a surprise. As has been set out on a number of occasions, the Bill is to enhance the extent to which the Department of Education identifies, assesses and meets pupil and parental demand for integrated education.

Dolores Kelly: Thank you, Mr Lyttle, for giving way. It is my understanding, despite the misinformation that seems to be in the public domain, that the Bill will, by putting integrated education on a more level playing field with the controlled and maintained sectors, give that sector a leg-up rather than giving it an advantage over any other sector. Can the Member confirm that?

Chris Lyttle: I thank the Member for her intervention. That has been well established at each stage of the Bill's progress by Members who have been engaging with the text and the facts of the Bill rather than making claims of discrimination and lack of equity without going into any detail on what the Bill actually includes. In what way does it discriminate against the controlled sector, which includes a number of integrated schools, and the maintained sector?

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Chris Lyttle: I will finish the point.
The extent to which some Members have had to emphasise their support for integrated education today really rings alarm bells as to the sincerity of that protestation. I will certainly support the Bill and the group 1 amendments.

Jim Allister: The amendments speak to the theme of supremacy that runs through the Bill. The Member who spoke previously has just laid down a challenge about how the Bill creates that supremacy. Well, I would like to ask the House this: where in legislation would I find the statutory obligation "to encourage, facilitate and support" any other sector? I will gladly give way to any Member who can tell me where in legislation I would find that information.
If this legislation has its way, it will be there for one sector and one sector only. If that is not supremacy, what is it? It is certainly not equality, and it is certainly not, in the words of the Bill sponsor a few minutes ago, about merely, simply allowing 69 schools to "have a strategy". It is about naked supremacy. That, indisputably, is what this Bill is about. It bestows statutory obligations that do not exist in respect of any other sectors. As if to underscore that, amendment No 1 could not be plainer. It wants to create that which is discretionary into something that is mandatory. It wants to put on the jackboot of mandatory obligation instead of what would be the common phraseology in legislation such as this of exercising a discretion.
Amendment No 2 puts in words that demonstrate a reticence about consulting anyone but the integrated sector. It proposes to insert the words:
"and if required"
before the words
"any other body the Department of Education considers appropriate."
The message is pretty clear: "We are the supreme, primary source of good education. If you have to talk to others, well, talk to them". That seems to be the arrogant assertion of those amendments.
I witnessed again today, as I did at Consideration Stage, Sinn Féin's volte-face on this issue. Mr O'Dowd, who has clearly been overruled — maybe not for the first time — had told us about the "mission creep" that the Bill represented. Today, Sinn Féin embraces the entire supremacy of the Bill, lock, stock and barrel. Mr O'Dowd's reservations were not allowed to last very long, as we saw. Maybe he whipped himself and whipped others to vote on the last occasion.
In the later amendments in this group — amendment Nos 23 to 27 — there is the most audacious attempt to enable legislation to be amended by mere regulation. We are to create a circumstance where legislation, which should be subjected to the processes and the scrutiny of the House, will simply be able to be changed in the interests of integrated education by the mere nodding through of regulations. That is but another indication of that supremacist approach to integrated education, "We do not need to bother with the normal legislative processes of changing the law; we will just do it by regulation because it is in the service of this greater supreme cause of integrated education".
I am glad that, since we last debated this matter, a number of the representative bodies and many schools have woken up to what is going on here. The maintained and controlled sectors have recognised that they are being talked down to as the poor relations in education and that the purpose of the Bill is to create an upper tier of elitism in education in terms of support, funding and everything else. There are no amendments here —

Robin Newton: I thank the Member for giving way. The point that he makes about supremacy and the awakening of other sectors to the Bill —

Pat Sheehan: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have looked through the amendments, and I do not see anything about supremacy in them. I wonder whether that is relevant to the debate. I know that the Member for North Antrim is expert in the supremacist approach; I just wonder where it is in the amendments.

Roy Beggs: This is Further Consideration Stage, and we are focusing on the amendments. This is a debate for Members to interpret and express their views of the amendments. I do not consider that to be a point of order. I call Mr Allister.

Jim Allister: Maybe Mr Sheehan —

Robin Newton: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Jim Allister: Sorry.

Roy Beggs: Apologies, I should have handed back to the Member.

Robin Newton: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are making it hard for you today. When talking about the ethos of the Bill, Mr Allister spoke about its "supremacist" nature and said that other sectors had started to awaken to the implications of the Bill. Does he agree that some schools are encouraging integration in a natural format? I will not name the school, but one school that made the representation that he is talking about said that it:
"promotes respect for identity and embraces diversity every day. We promote equality of opportunity and deliver educational benefits to our children. To know that, if this Bill is accepted, we will now be penalised is totally unfair".
Is that the type of supremacist attitude that Mr Allister was referring to?

Roy Beggs: I remind Members that, if they intervene, interventions should be brief.

Jim Allister: The Member makes a very valid point. There are schools that are supremely integrated, but, because they do not have "integrated" above the door, they are looked down upon. That is what the Bill wants to do. It wants to say that, unless you have been admitted to that special elite order of integrated education, you are a lesser individual in your education sector. That really is what the Bill is doing.
As for Mr Sheehan, perhaps if he had troubled himself to read as far as amendment Nos 7, 8 and 9, he would have discovered that supremacy comes in this way: by introducing encouragement, facilitation and support for one sector and one sector only.
I will not support the amendments. I stand, unapologetically, on the side of the maintained and controlled sectors, which, rightly, are objecting that they are being penalised for the advancement of the integrated sector, and that is intolerably inequitable.

Roy Beggs: I call the Minister of Education, Michelle McIlveen, to respond to the debate on the group 1 amendments.

Michelle McIlveen: As the Bill sponsor has rightly stated, I did not table amendments at the Further Consideration Stage. Recognising that the Bill, as introduced and as amended at Consideration Stage, represents defective law, and given that the range of sensible amendments that I had moved at Consideration Stage were largely negatived, I instructed the OLC to draft amendments with a view to tabling those. I also wrote to the Bill sponsor, the Education Committee and party leaders providing a legal analysis of the technical concerns relating to the Bill. I facilitated a meeting with the OLC, the Bill sponsor and my officials to see how far amendments could resolve what I consider to be fundamental flaws in the Bill. Having considered the draft amendments, I concluded that the deficiencies in the Bill are simply too fundamental to be resolved. I therefore decided not to table amendments at Further Consideration Stage. The Speaker very helpfully confirmed at the start of the sitting that there is no legal or Standing Order requirement for the Minister of any Department to table amendments, and I chose not to do so.
I will go back to the Consideration Stage, when I set out a significant number of reasonable amendments that would have clearly delivered on what the Bill sponsor and others say that they seek to achieve through the Bill. Having witnessed the consistent voting down of drafting that would have delivered reasonable, sensible and workable law, I will come back to two key points, the first of which is the most fundamental of all: our children. Children in every school, sector and community are overlooked. In fact, I would argue that they are absent from the Bill.
The current system is not necessarily perfect, but it supports parental choice, not with a predetermined outcome in mind but with an open mind. Nothing about the Bill represents open-mindedness. The Department of Education will be required to set targets and aim to meet demand for integrated education but not for maintained, controlled, voluntary or Irish-medium education. The Bill is not concerned with parental preference for any other sector. It is not concerned with the preferences of 93% of parents —

Kellie Armstrong: Will the Minister give way?

Michelle McIlveen: If you do not mind, I will not.
It is not concerned with the preferences of 93% of parents whose children are currently educated in schools in other sectors. It lifts out and elevates only the preference for integrated education, above all and at the expense of all other sectors. That is not my definition of the level playing field that many Members have stated, at every stage of the Bill, as a desired outcome. Nothing in the Bill represents the right of our children to have high-quality, sustainable education. The Bill is based on one sectoral interest above others and is divisive.
The second key point, which I come back to, is that I simply cannot support the Bill in the legally defective form in which it was introduced and amended at Consideration Stage. For it to be necessary for the Bill sponsor to table, at Further Consideration Stage, 10 further amendments on top of the five that she had already tabled — amendments that attempt to clarify what should have been clear from the Bill's introduction, namely the definition of an integrated school and what "support" for integrated education is intended to imply — is a clear indictment of the Bill's defectiveness.
Amendment Nos 3 and 21 appear to be catch-all amendments, should the Bill sponsor have failed to identify all the provisions that need clarification. In fact, I do not think that the Bill sponsor identified any of the provisions that need clarification. The Bill's defectiveness, coming out of Consideration Stage, was so significant that I had to write to the Bill sponsor, the party leaders and the Education Committee to set out the technical issues with the Bill at that point. I do not have any reason to believe that, had I not done so, the Bill sponsor would have identified the defects herself.
Even with amendment Nos 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28, does the Bill sponsor have any real concept of what her Bill will do? Despite confident claims to the contrary from her at every stage, I do not think that she understands or , indeed, cares about its impact on schools and, therefore, on children. On the definition in clause 1 that was voted through at Consideration Stage and that the amendments now seek to track through to the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, does the Bill sponsor realise what that means for integrated schools themselves? Has she provided a copy of the Bill directly to integrated schools with a clear and unambiguous explanation of what, in practice, it will mean for them? I hear, from principals of integrated schools, that they realised only after Consideration Stage that the Bill does not live up to the headlines or the claims made for it by the sponsor and her party.

Chris Lyttle: Will the Minister give way?

Michelle McIlveen: No, I will not.
In practical terms, clause 1 changes the definition of what it means to be an integrated school. Every existing grant-maintained and controlled integrated school will have to conduct an analysis and provide evidence to demonstrate that it now meets that definition. All of them will also have to review their admissions criteria. In legal terms, integrated education is no longer just to be about focusing on the education together, in a school, of:
"reasonable numbers of both Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils".
Now, an integrated school "must" do that, with no requirement in the Bill, I might add, for that to be a quality educational experience —

Kellie Armstrong: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister is rightly debating the Bill. She is now talking about clause 1, however, as opposed to the Further Consideration Stage amendments. I ask that we come back to those.

Jim Allister: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Roy Beggs: Order. Allow me to make some comments.
The Member rightly highlights that there is no amendment to clause 1, nor an indication to vote on clause 1 stand part. I encourage the Minister to speak to the amendments. I have allowed some latitude because, during the debate, others challenged the Minister's response to the Bill and it was appropriate for her to have an opportunity to answer those comments.

Jim Allister: Surely, Mr Deputy Speaker, amendment Nos 23 to 28 are exactly on the point that the definition is being changed, whereby it is no longer the education of:
"reasonable numbers of both Protestant and Catholic pupils"
together but substitutes "integrated education". Is that not the very point that the Minister was making?

Roy Beggs: The Member made that point earlier, in his own contribution. I ask that the debate return to the group 1 amendments, and I invite the Minister to continue.

Michelle McIlveen: I welcome Mr Allister's intervention. I can reassure the Deputy Speaker that everything that I say in response will be relevant to the Further Consideration Stage and the amendments.
I will go back to the point that was being made about the definition. I will say it again: no longer, in legal terms, is integrated education just to be about focusing on the education together in a school of reasonable numbers of Protestants and Roman Catholics. An integrated school now must do that with, if I may add, no requirement for it to be a quality educational experience in a sustainable school. That is very important, and it is at the heart of everything that we are saying today.
Clause 1 states that integrated schools must also ensure:
"(a) those of different cultures and religious beliefs and of none ...

(b) those who are experiencing socio-economic deprivation and those who are not; and

(c) those of different abilities"
are educated together in a school that:
"intentionally supports, protects and advances an ethos of diversity, respect and understanding between"
those categories. Any integrated school cannot just claim that it does that. It will have to prove that it does that, and it will have to do so whilst ensuring that the quality of education that it provides, in meeting the requirements of the statutory curriculum, is delivered to a high standard.
I have it here in Hansard that the Bill sponsor has claimed:
"Every single integrated school that I have met and discussed this with can meet the definition"
that the amendments would track into the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and:
"the definition will not cause any problems whatsoever for any integrated school now or in the future." — [Official Report (Hansard), 17 January 2022, p68, col 2].
She further claims:
"We are asking for an inspection and are prepared to do the extra work. Those schools are prepared to be measured". — [Official Report (Hansard), 17 January 2022, p69, col 1].
I have been told by representatives of integrated schools that they were not asked and that they do not, in fact, welcome having a different inspection regime to prove their status. I suggest that the Bill sponsor reflect on just how representative the views that she puts forward are and explain how we can be sure about the level of consultation that has underpinned a process that will, undoubtedly, have far-reaching implications for existing integrated schools. Has the Bill sponsor clearly advised integrated schools that they will have additional work to do to demonstrate that they are, in fact, integrated schools?
Legal advice suggests that the definition could mean that a mix from every category in clause 1 must be reflected in every individual class in an integrated school. Has the Bill sponsor considered the ramifications of that? For example, how is a post-primary integrated school even to stream its pupils, a practice that is standard, certainly for delivering qualifications? Whilst having regard to its duty:
"to encourage and facilitate the development of integrated education"
and, under amendment No 22:
"to provide support for integrated education",
the Department cannot ignore the fact that it will have to ensure that every integrated school meets the definition of what that requires and that every school, and I mean every school, can demonstrate that with evidence. If schools do not, they are not integrated schools delivering integrated education as defined in the Bill. The Department will therefore have to take steps to avoid falling foul of the legislation.
The Department will also have to reconsider, in the light of the new definition, what "reasonable numbers" are in practice. Given that it appears that the new strategy requires targets for everything, all guidance and policy will change from what is clearly understood as aspiring to meet the minimum 30% mix. All guidance and policy will now need to be reviewed in the context of the wider definition, and officials will also have to consider the potential ramifications should schools fail to meet the new definition and targets.
The Bill also has a lot to say on targets and the use of benchmarks. That represents a significant backward step for the integrated sector. In a context in which we are moving to an outcomes-based approach, focusing on the difference that we want to make for our society, children and schools, having an outdated focus on outputs and targets will not deliver the impact that our children and young people deserve.
Over recent weeks, the Bill sponsor and her party have invested a significant amount time in claiming on social media that no sector will be impacted by what the Bill sponsor describes as the "modest" Bill before us. The explanatory and financial memorandum suggests that two additional departmental staff in one team will be required, which will cost around £40,000 per annum —

Kellie Armstrong: On a point of order.

Michelle McIlveen: — and that under £300,000 per annum —

Kellie Armstrong: On a point of order.

Michelle McIlveen: — will cover the integrated education strategy costs.

Roy Beggs: Order. Point of order, Ms Armstrong.

Kellie Armstrong: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister is veering into discussing the group 2 amendments, as opposed to discussing the amendments before us. I did not know that what I do on my social media accounts is so important to the Minister.

Roy Beggs: As Members will be aware, the debate on the generalities of the Bill occurs at Final Stage. I urge everyone to return to debating the specific amendments in group 1.

Michelle McIlveen: I appreciate that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but, of course, it is all very much linked, because what is being said outside is influencing decisions that are being made in the Chamber. There are suggestions on social media — I apologise for having to use that term again — that, as funding follows a pupil via the age-weighted pupil unit, there will be no impact on other schools. That is inaccurate and dangerously misleading.
Amendment Nos 1 and 2 seek to place an additional significant bureaucratic burden on the Department of Education. The Bill sponsor would lead us to believe that the Bill represents a mechanism for progress, but it is more likely that it will be a Bill that grinds the Department of Education to a halt and places an unnecessary burden on integrated schools. It will result in a considerable amount of work being done that delivers few or no tangible benefits for the pupils in those schools. Under the Bill's provisions, staff and resources will be diverted to meet the requirements of the strategy, report on the aim to meet demand, and carry out the Bill's many consultation requirements. Anyone who thinks that that will not impact on the Department's ability to support other schools and sectors is wrong.
We also should not ignore the significant additional burden that will be placed on staff and resources in our integrated schools. The requirement of the Bill, if it becomes law, will take precedence over any sensible budget planning that any Minister of Education seeks to manage. I remind Members that 90% of the Department of Education's budget goes towards funding schools and pupils. The balance of the funding is targeted towards early intervention initiatives, youth and other children's services, other non-departmental public bodies, other education services, and departmental costs.
Recovery from the impact of an ongoing global pandemic is a current issue. The emotional health and well-being of pupils, teachers and principals is a current issue. Supporting our most vulnerable children and young people is a current issue. Addressing barriers to learning for children and delivering the ambitious programme of change laid out in 'A Fair Start' is a current issue. Those are critical issues that can make a real difference for our children and young people and our practitioners in schools, but their funding is not a statutory requirement. Are we to stop programmes such as 'A Fair Start', Engage or extended schools to secure the funding that is required to implement the Bill? That move would be to the detriment of every sector, including the integrated sector. More importantly, it would be to the detriment of our children.
As funding of those critical programmes is not statutory, they will take second place behind devising targets and providing sufficient places to aim to meet unspecified demand for integrated places — never mind the almost 3,000 available places that exist in integrated schools today — in a landscape where there are very few areas in Northern Ireland where an integrated school cannot be reasonably accessed.
Funding will be required for the conducting of consultation exercise after consultation exercise, for staff increases in oversubscribed integrated schools to meet unspecified demand, for capital requirements to ensure that children have somewhere to sit and technology to learn with, and for paying an estimated minimum of £30,000 for every individual judicial review. No additional funding is coming with the Bill.
There is one education budget, which is already under significant pressure and faces a shortfall of around £735 million over the next three financial years. That is not rhetoric; it is reality. What a dereliction of duty it would be for the House to place such a burden on the Department of Education's budget.
The Bill is not modest. It is not about a level playing field but is designed much more to hold feet to the fire than to actually deliver benefits for children in integrated schools or any other type of school. The evidence is here again today in the fact that none of these amendments would be required if good, practical, workable legislation was being debated.
Amendment No 10 serves to remind the Bill sponsor that other schools in other sectors bring children together and break down barriers. I invested a significant amount of time at Consideration Stage to present amendments that would have done what the Bill sponsor claims is the intention of this Bill. The very fact that such active opposition to my amendments was evident speaks volumes. I am not hiding behind headlines or electioneering sound bites. I am stating very clearly that this is not a modest Bill. It is defective law that will not deliver the benefits presented over recent days on social media. Educating children together? Absolutely. Legislating for one sector over another? Absolutely not. I will not support those amendments.

Roy Beggs: I call Kellie Armstrong to make a winding-up speech.

Kellie Armstrong: I will stick to the amendments at hand. Only a few of the Members who stood today asked me questions to answer. I will deal first with the contribution from Mrs Dolores Kelly. On amendment No 1, I absolutely agree with her that if the word "must" applied to any functions, that would have been a concern. However, at Consideration Stage, we changed it to apply to only those in the interest of integrated education, so, hopefully, that will settle her concerns about that.
Amendment No 2, to remove the word "or" and replace it with "and if required", was tabled because that was brought to my attention. As I have said throughout this whole process, when someone comes to me and they have concerns, and there are amendments that can be made to make better legislation, I will take those forward. I was approached. The current part of the Bill that talks about an advisory body originally said:
"In exercising any functions relating to integrated education the Department of Education may consult with—
(a) any body appearing to the Department of Education to have as an objective the encouragement or promotion of integrated education, or
(b) any other body".
That "or" was felt to be disingenuous. It was felt that it meant the advisory body could be set aside and not consulted. That is why it was changed from "or" to "and if required", to allow the Department to make that decision.

Jim Allister: Will the Member give way?

Kellie Armstrong: I certainly will.

Jim Allister: The Member is dancing on the head of a pin when she says that there is a distinction between the discretion that arises from the use of the word "or" and the discretion that arises from defining "if required". It is the same decision maker. The Department will decide whether it is required, just as it will decide whether or not, in the first case, to consult. So, really, what is the difference that she is trying to establish?

Kellie Armstrong: I thank Mr Allister for that. I point out to him that it says:
"In exercising any functions relating to integrated education the Department of Education may consult with—".
So it is up to the Department. What I am saying is that, if the Department chooses to consult, it will consult with:
"(a) any body appearing to the Department of Education to have as an objective the encouragement or promotion of integrated education".
Instead of the Bill stating that it may consult with "or" somebody else, it will state that it may consult with "and" someone else "if required".
One of the main things that I will take from what everyone else has said is that, obviously, there is a difference of opinion in the House. The House will vote on the Bill and on the amendments today, but I highlight the fact that the Minister said in her speech that students get "no tangible benefits" from the Bill. I fail to see that students get no tangible benefits from integrated education.
Just to confirm for others, this is the Integrated Education Bill. It does not speak about any other sector because the title of the Bill is as it is. It is the Integrated Education Bill. If anyone feels that another sector in Northern Ireland is not being treated equally, they can, as I have done as a private Member, introduce a Bill. For today, I am finished with the group 1 amendments.

Chris Lyttle: Will the Member give way briefly before she finishes?

Kellie Armstrong: Very briefly. I had nearly sat down.

Chris Lyttle: I thank the Member for giving way. I just want to place this on the record in relation to this group of amendments, because some Members sought to raise doubt over particular bodies' responses to the Bill: a cursory glance online will find the stated belief of the Council for Integrated Education that the Integrated Education Bill will help to assess and meet pupil and parental demand and contribute to building a shared society.

Kellie Armstrong: I thank the Member for that intervention. As the Bill sponsor, I have tabled the amendments that I spoke to the Department and the Office of the Legislative Counsel about on 31 January. I believe that the drafting and the work of the Bill Office on this is good. I will not criticise it as others have done.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Assembly divided:
 Ayes 48; Noes 38
 AYES 
 Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Miss Woods
 Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Bradshaw, Mr Lyttle
 NOES 
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
 Tellers for the Noes: Mrs Dodds, Mr Newton

Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendment No 2 proposed:
In page 2, line 17, leave out second “or” and insert “and if required”. — [Ms Armstrong.]Question put, That the amendment be made.

Alex Maskey: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 113(5)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division.
The Assembly divided:
 Ayes 48; Noes 38
 AYES 
 Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Miss Woods
 Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Dickson, Mr Lyttle
 NOES 
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
 Tellers for the Noes: Mr Harvey, Mr Newton

Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 5 (Meaning of support)
Amendment No 3 proposed:
In page 2, line 30, after first “reference” insert—“in any provision of Northern Ireland legislation” — [Ms Armstrong.]Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Assembly divided:
 Ayes 48; Noes 38
 AYES 
 Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Miss Woods
 Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Dickson, Mr Lyttle
 NOES 
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
 Tellers for the Noes: Mrs Dodds, Mr Harvey

Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendment No 4 proposed:
In page 2, line 30, after “education” insert—“(including support for the development of integrated education)”. — [Ms Armstrong.]Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Assembly divided:
 Ayes 48; Noes 38
 AYES 
 Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Miss Woods
 Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Dickson, Mr Lyttle
 NOES 
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
 Tellers for the Noes: Mr Harvey, Mr Newton

Question accordingly agreed to.

Alex Maskey: Members, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting for 30 minutes until 1.20 pm. That is an extra two minutes.
The debate stood suspended.
The sitting was suspended at 12.49 pm and resumed at 1.21 pm.
Debate resumed.
Clause 5 (Meaning of support)

Alex Maskey: We now come to the second group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 5, it will be convenient to debate amendment No 6 and amendment Nos 11 to 20. I call Robbie Butler to move amendment No 5 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Steve Aiken: I beg to move amendment No 5:
In page 2, line 32, after “education” insert—“within the context of area planning and the overall sustainability of the school estate”.

Alex Maskey: So moved by Steve Aiken.
The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:
No 6: In page 2, line 35, after “education” insert—“within the context of area planning and the overall sustainability of the school estate”. — [Dr Aiken.]No 11: In clause 8, page 4, line 16, at end insert—“(d) an Irish-medium school which comes into existence after this Act receives Royal Assent”. — [Mr McNulty.]No 12: In clause 9, page 4, line 24, leave out “must” and insert “may”. — [Dr Aiken.]No 13: In clause 9, page 5, line 5, at end insert—“(g) have due regard to the provisions of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in regard to subsection (1) of this section.” — [Dr Aiken.]No 14: In clause 9, page 5, line 5, at end insert—“(2A) The provisions and funding commitments included in the integrated education strategy must be made without detriment to other education sectors.” — [Dr Aiken.]No 15: In clause 9, page 5, line 11, leave out paragraph (c). — [Dr Aiken.]No 16: In clause 9, page 5, line 12, leave out paragraph (d). — [Dr Aiken.]No 17: In clause 9, page 5, line 24, at end insert—“(c) have due regard to recommendations made by the Assembly or a Committee of the Assembly.” — [Dr Aiken.]No 18: In clause 11, page 6, line 34, after “diversity” insert “, inclusive and diverse classes”. — [Mrs D Kelly.]No 19: In clause 11, page 6, line 37, leave out from “initial” to “teachers,” on line 38 and insert—&quot;training appropriate to their role for all”. — [Mrs D Kelly.]No 20: In clause 11, page 6, line 40, leave out paragraph (i). — [Mrs D Kelly.]

Steve Aiken: In making my remarks, I will keep as closely as possible to the guidelines to make sure that I am speaking to the amendments. I am sure that Members will be quite happy with that.
I will begin the debate on the second group of proposed amendments to the Integrated Education Bill at Further Consideration Stage. I will move the bulk of the amendments in this group, and I will speak to their content and purpose in turn.
First, however, I would like to provide the context for why I feel compelled to move so many amendments at this stage of the Bill. I appreciate that all of us have scrutinised the Bill with an intense focus, and I do not want to dwell on matters that other Members will already be aware of. It will not have escaped Members' notice that the Bill has sparked a monumental discussion not just in this place but among different education sectors, in schools, in family homes and, of course, in many constituency offices, including mine.
The Bill has progressed through its various stages and now contains over 100 amendments. It had to be rescheduled to allow more time for further amendments to iron out unintended consequences from the Bill. It is fair to say that, in many ways, the Bill was not oven-ready. At Further Consideration Stage, amendments are meant to be limited in scope, but the Bill still requires some serious amendments before it can, in any way, be deemed to be fit for purpose.
Amendment Nos 5 and 6 relate to clause 5, which has been one of the most contentious clauses at all of the Bill's stages. Feedback from just about all other sectors indicates that there is a serious level of opposition to a duty to support one sector above another. Our amendments seek to define the meaning further in the Bill and to ensure that it specifically relates to the context of area planning and that the provision does not negatively impact on the sustainability of other schools nor interfere with the Province-wide parental preference that we all want to protect.
Amendment No 12 to clause 9 is where we seek to ensure consistency in the Bill by leaving out the word "must" and inserting the word "may". I said earlier that, given the complexities of the Bill and its very ambitious reach with regard to its strategy, regulations and support etc, it is vital that the legislation has flexibility and provision for the Department, for the sector and, indeed, for any future Minister of Education to create, in this case, a strategy that is fit for purpose and better reflects the needs of the sector and of parental preference. Furthermore, I feel that that is where we are experiencing the most significant disquiet among the controlled and maintained sectors.
Amendment No 13 to clause 9 is needed to ensure that the outcomes of any integrated education strategy are equality impact assessed. We feel compelled to include that amendment as the Bill has not been subjected to any equality impact assessment under section 75 to do with protected characteristics. Given that there is immense fear in the CCMS and CSSC that the final provisions of the Bill will impact on their sectors, we believe that it is necessary to put that into the wording of the Bill.
Amendment No 14 is vital. The UUP feels that it is necessary to allay the fears about the financial implications of the Bill's consequences, unintended or otherwise.
The amendment seeks to introduce a new subsection into clause 9 that will safeguard the capital funding considerations of the other education sectors. As has been made abundantly clear, the concerns with the Bill are not that integrated education will be promoted or supported but that its provisions will have a detrimental impact on the other education sectors. Other parties have gone out of their way to assure the House and the wider public that the Bill will have no negative impact on other education sectors and to allay the fears that have been articulated by us and others. If that is the case, let us codify that in legislation. I hope that all of us can support that amendment.

Kellie Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. I have read the amendment with interest and seek clarification. Amendment No 14 states:
"The provisions and funding commitments included in the integrated education strategy must be made without detriment to other education sectors."
When I met Mr Butler to discuss that, I highlighted my concern about any child who achieves a place at an integrated school following, for instance, a temporary variation as an outcome of the integrated education strategy. Does it mean that, as soon as that child goes through the doors of the school and the common funding formula is used to fund that child, it breaks with this? Does it mean that integrated education is detrimental to other education sectors? I am concerned that such a wide-ranging subsection being added would have other unintended consequences.

Steve Aiken: I thank the Bill sponsor for that comment. No, we do not expect that to be the circumstances. This is about ensuring the appropriate amount of support for all children, no matter where they happen to be.
Amendment Nos 15 and 16 seek to remove paragraphs from clause 9 that pertain to what targets and benchmarks of the strategy there may be. Those amendments are, in our opinion, consequential to the changes that were agreed and effected at Consideration Stage — namely, to what is now clause 8, "New schools". That clause originally had a presumption that all new schools would be integrated. It has now been agreed that the Department consider integrated status for new schools, and subsequent caveats are included. If there is no presumption or onus on new schools to seek integrated status, there should be no corresponding targets in the Department's strategy that measures success by the number of existing schools switching to integrated status or new schools formed with integrated status. We are not suggesting that that is a useful statistic to look at and interrogate, but, if it were measured as a distinct target or benchmark of success by the Department, surely that is presupposing the demand for integrated school places instead of reacting to demand.
On reflection, it is not my intention to move amendment No 17.

Pat Sheehan: I welcome the opportunity to speak today. I do not intend to speak at any great length. I support the amendments proposed by the sponsor, and I will support amendment Nos 5, 6, 10, 11 and 18.
I commend the work that the Bill sponsor has done in tabling her amendments. They are largely technical and tidying-up amendments that seek to resolve some of the outstanding issues identified at Consideration Stage by the Minister, who, we have heard, did not bring forward her own amendments. You wonder why that happened.
The Good Friday Agreement placed a duty on the Department of Education to encourage and facilitate integrated education. We want to build on that and see more progress being made. Currently, there is a demand for integrated education that is not being met. It is a priority for Sinn Féin to make sure that that demand is met as we move forward.
A lot of misinformation has been spread about the Bill, and that has been reflected in some of the hyperbole that we have heard in the Chamber today. Some of the language used has been off the scale. We heard my learned friend in the corner talking about a "supremacist" attitude, and even Mrs Dodds said that we need to stand up and support 93% in the controlled and maintained sector. First, the percentages are inaccurate, because they do not take account of students in the Irish-medium sector.
Secondly, I have not heard anyone here argue that the maintained or controlled sectors should be disadvantaged in any way.
Earlier, in an intervention, I raised the point that, if a child wants to go to a controlled school or a Catholic maintained school, although they might not necessarily get a place at their first-choice school, they will get into the sector that they want to go to. I have never heard of a case, ever, where parents wanted to send their child to a school in the controlled sector or the Catholic maintained sector and were not able to get their child into that sector. By contrast, some parents are unable to send their children to a school in the integrated or, indeed, the Irish-medium education sector because there is no such school in their locality and it would be much too far for a child to travel to get to the nearest school of that type. Rather than giving the integrated sector an advantage, we are trying to bring it on to an equal footing with other sectors so that, if a parent wants to make the choice — we have all said today, on all sides of the Chamber, that we want parents to have the choice — of where they send their children to school, this legislation will give them that choice. They will have the choice to send their child to a school in the integrated sector.

Robin Newton: I thank the Member for giving way. Will he quantify for the Chamber how many vacant places there are in integrated schools at the moment?

Pat Sheehan: My understanding is that there are around 2,000, which equates to the lowest percentage of all sectors at the minute. There are fewer empty places in the integrated sector than in any other sector. I am not sure what point the Member wanted to make. If he wants to tell me, I will be happy to take another intervention. No? OK.
We have all been sent plenty of emails and so on over the past while, particularly from the controlled sector, complaining about the Bill. I do not know how many I got from schools in the controlled sector, from rural areas in particular, that said that they were in my constituency. It is a bit of a mystery. I did not realise that so many people travelled outside west Belfast to go to rural schools in west Tyrone, Fermanagh and so on, but there you go. Every day is a school day.
I voice my opposition to amendment Nos 15, 16 and 20, which deal with training, monitoring and inspection. In relation to amendment Nos 15 and 16, which deal with data monitoring and reporting, how will we assess the effectiveness of a strategy designed to support integrated education if we refuse to gather data on new integrated schools? That does not make sense. Similarly, with amendment No 20, which deals with the inspection regime, I do not understand why you would not include matters relating to integrated education.

Dolores Kelly: Will the Member give way?

Pat Sheehan: Certainly.

Dolores Kelly: I advise the Member that, having spoken to the Bill sponsor and received clarification this morning, we will not move amendment No 20.

Pat Sheehan: Thanks for that clarification, Dolores. In that case, there is no point saying what I was going to say
[Laughter.]
I reaffirm my support for amendment Nos 5, 6, 10, 11, 17 and 18 and for the technical and tidying-up amendments proposed by the Bill sponsor, which strengthen the Bill.
I hope that Members opposite will reconsider their position on the Bill and not pursue a petition of concern.
It now seems likely that the UUP is also lining up to sign that petition of concern. I note that the education spokesperson for the UUP has not been here today. There has been some discussion about why he has not been here, but that is for another day.

Steve Aiken: Will the Member give way?

Pat Sheehan: Certainly.

Steve Aiken: I assure you that Mr Butler would be here in normal circumstances, but you will be fully aware that he is now looking after three young children who he is fostering at the moment. That is the reason why he is not here. I do not think that there is any other implication in that or that just hearing my dulcet tones in any way indicates that this is not UUP policy. I assure you that Mr Butler is fully behind everything that is being said here.

Pat Sheehan: OK, and thanks for that clarification.
I will make one other point before I conclude. Again, at the outset of the debate, the Member for North Antrim mentioned Sinn Féin's position, and he referred particularly to John O'Dowd. Were we happy with the initial iteration of the Bill? No, we were not. What did we do? We engaged with the Bill sponsor and her researcher. We have done that the whole way through the passage of the Bill. It is unfortunate that other parties and Members did not do the same. I know that they did not. It would be much better if, when a Member introduces a Bill like this, other parties and Members engaged on it, and, in that way, we could come to a consensus on what the finished article would look like.
For our part, we in Sinn Féin want to see divisions in society ending. We want our children to be educated together where they can be, and we want parents to have the choice to be able to send their children to integrated schools if they so wish. Sinn Féin will continue with that work in the time ahead.

Diane Dodds: I rise to make a very few remarks about the group 2 amendments. We will support a number of those amendments, but I will make it clear at the outset that support for them will not mean that the overall Bill will suddenly become satisfactory. The amendments soften the context of the Bill, but they do not deal with its fundamental problem.
Clauses 4 and 5 as amended at Consideration Stage include an additional duty "in respect of integrated education". Members will recall that integrated education already had two additional duties in law that do not apply to the controlled and maintained sector. Those are specifically the duty to "encourage and facilitate" integrated education. The Bill as amended at Consideration Stage added an additional duty to "support" integrated education. That additional duty is defined in clause 5 for places and resources and, again, in the strategy. That is where the amendments that we have been particularly interested in fall.
The duty to support remains, but amendment Nos 5 and 6 seek to place and contextualise that duty to support:
"within the context of area planning and the ... sustainability of the school estate".
While that softens the impact of the proposal, it will not take away the additional duty, and, as I have said in the House on a number of occasions, we object to additional duties in law that place the sector in a different place to other sectors in education. We will support amendment Nos 5 and 6, but we are mindful that they simply soften the context without fundamentally changing it.
The fundamental flaw will remain. I repeat that it is a form of discrimination against the controlled and maintained sectors.
Amendment No 14 has been discussed already. It is another amendment by which its proposer seeks to soften the Bill and its impact. I am not sure of the intention behind it. It states:
"The provisions and funding commitments included in the integrated education strategy must be made without detriment to other education sectors."
It would be incredibly difficult to determine — it may be fought over in courts — what "without detriment" means. I accept and support the intention of the amendment because it seeks to soften the Bill, but it does not deal with the fundamental problem: we are supporting one sector of education above all others. The proposer of the amendments has done a significant amount of work on them. I view them not as game changers but as attempts to ameliorate the duties in law that were added to the Bill and voted for by all of the parties in the House, except those on this side.
Amendment No 16 is the proposal to exclude clause 9(3)(d). It is significant. It is, again, done for the good reason that the Department does not have the duty in relation to any other sector.
There are amendments in the group that we support — amendment Nos 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 — but you should look at the context in which we support them. They try to ameliorate a bad Bill, but it is still a bad Bill.

Dolores Kelly: One of the biggest difficulties with education is that the sector overall is under-resourced and underfunded. I hope that, in the next mandate, the Executive will acknowledge that education lifts people out of poverty and gives them the best opportunity in life. I hope that any future Education Minister gets the support of the whole Executive and receives a greater share of the resources that are available for education.
A number of the amendments are technical in nature. We support all of the technical amendments. We support amendment Nos 5 and 6. My colleague Justin McNulty will speak further to our amendment No 11, but I ask the House to support it. Having spoken to the Bill sponsor this morning, we are minded not to move, I think, amendment Nos 19 and 20. We remain unconvinced of the proposer of amendment No 12's argument about replacing "must" with "may". We want to hear more about that. I do not know why amendment No 13 exists, given that all public bodies and Departments have a section 75 legislative duty already. It seems that that would just clutter up the Bill with an unnecessary amendment. I would like to hear a rationale for that amendment from the proposer.
There is another matter that I want to address. Bear with me, Mr Speaker, while I find my place. Given the way in which the amendments go, I am moving from one place to another.
Reluctantly, I concur with some Members that, unfortunately, the Bill has had to have a substantive amount of work done to it. I think that that has been to do with the rush towards the end of this mandate. I know that the Bill was scrutinised at Committee Stage, but the number of amendments tabled since causes me some level of concern. The SDLP has worked in good faith with the Bill sponsor, and she has accepted our good faith about the integrated sector. It is disingenuous of some on the opposite Benches to continue with the myth that the Bill is giving the integrated sector a leg-up. All the research states that parents want, first, of course, a good education for their children. They want for them the best education, as well as the best pastoral care, which is increasingly important for children and young people when they come to choosing their school. In what is reflective of our changing society, a majority of people want our children to be educated together. If the review deals with —

Diane Dodds: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with your remarks that education is the best way in which to lift people out of poverty. I agree that we want to see our children educated together. Does the Member not agree with me, however, that many children are already educated together in sectors that are not called "integrated" and that those sectors will suffer because we are prioritising the integrated sector?

Dolores Kelly: I spent some time last week with your colleague Carla Lockhart MP and Mr O'Dowd at Carrick Primary School in Lurgan, which is a controlled-sector school with over 500 pupils and, I think, 50:50 in its demographics. Some of our amendments address the issue of shared education and how successful it has been as a result of the sharing and pooling of resources. I for one, who was educated in the Catholic maintained sector and by the Sisters of Mercy at grammar school, would argue robustly against any charges that I learned sectarianism in school. That certainly was not the case. We talk about resources, and we are experiencing very tight financial constraints yet again, so I hope that the independent review of education will deal with the cost of education in a divided society.
I also want to make the point, Mrs Dodds, that, unfortunately, the location of housing in which people live is dictating who goes to the local schools. When Margaret Ritchie was housing Minister, she piloted some shared housing, and we will hopefully see an awful lot more of that. I know that people value their schools as the hub of their communities.
I have accepted the Bill sponsor's commitment, and we have examined it ourselves, both in our scrutiny in Committee and in our discussions with the sectors. We do not buy into the myth that the Bill will create an uneven playing field that gives an advantage to the integrated sector over the maintained, or Catholic, sector. There are therefore a number of amendments that we will be supporting at this stage. There are some that we want to hear about further that we may end up opposing, but we will make that decision as the debate continues.

Chris Lyttle: As the Alliance education spokesperson, I have worked with and on behalf of every type of school and school sector in Northern Ireland on a range of different issues, securing a range of different outcomes. That includes in education other than at school (EOTAS) settings, and my party will continue to work with and on behalf of every type of school and school sector in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement, the paramilitary crime task force (PCTF), the independent review of integrated education and the New Decade, New Approach agreement all consistently task the Executive with advancing integrated education.
The Alliance Party supports integrated education, and it supports the Bill, which would enhance the way in which the Department of Education assesses and meets pupil and parental demand for integrated education.
There are approximately 60 integrated schools out of a total of over 1,000 schools in Northern Ireland. When it comes to non-integrated schools in Northern Ireland, in 83 out of approximately 996 such schools at least 10% of the pupils come from a minority community. Those schools have legitimate aims to welcome and include all communities, but it is clear that significantly more work needs to be done to bring our children and young people together to learn in the classroom, which is the aim. In the Alliance Party, we believe that our colleague who sponsors the Bill is taking an important step towards achieving that aim.
Education change is sensitive and takes courage. For example, as an integrated school, Lagan College was established under police guard. Such change is sensitive, and we appreciate that.
The amendments in group 2 have been tabled in conjunction with other parties. From the Alliance Party's point of view, we support the Bill sponsor's amendments and a number of amendments from other parties, but there are amendments that we will oppose.
We oppose amendment No 12, which was tabled by Robbie Butler and would significantly water down the intentions of, and the regulations that result from, the Bill.
We oppose amendment No 14, the legal effect of which other Members have respectfully questioned.
We oppose amendment No 15, which was also tabled by Robbie Butler. That appears to seek to remove targets and benchmarking for integrated education, both of which are legitimate and have been called for in a number of the strategies that I have mentioned in my contributions today.
We will also oppose amendment No 16, tabled by Robbie Butler. I find myself asking why Robbie and the Ulster Unionist Party have gone to such lengths to table so many amendments, when it appears, as other Members have said, that the Ulster Unionist Party is positioning itself to oppose the Bill.

Pat Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Chris Lyttle: Yes, I will give way.

Pat Sheehan: The position that the Ulster Unionists have taken up today is interesting, and we already know the position of the DUP, of course. I wonder whether any of the parties or individuals who oppose the Bill have come forward, during the passage of the Bill or even before that, with another suggestion as to how demand for places in integrated schools can be met and how parents can be given the choice to send their children to integrated schools. I have not heard any such proposal or suggestion from those who oppose the Bill.

Chris Lyttle: That is an important point. I have found myself asking the same question throughout the Bill's stages. We have heard a lot about what people oppose, followed promptly by an emphasis that they do, however, support integrated education, without much detail on how they have done that or how they plan to do it.

Diane Dodds: Will the Member give way?

Chris Lyttle: I will, but I will finish this point.
Much reference has been made to the independent review of education, despite the fact that a number of reviews and reports at Executive level have already called for action on integrated education to be taken now. The Presbyterian moderator, for whom I have the utmost respect, asked:
"Is this the right ... time to bring about ... significant change in education?"
Considering the length of the list of reports that have called for that change, the answer is a clear yes. As I said, there are times when it takes courage to stand up for change in education, given how sensitive that can be in Northern Ireland, but now is the time for that. I am happy to give way.

Diane Dodds: I thank the Member for giving way. I want to make two points. Mr Sheehan asked a question about the demand for integrated education. In an answer to an Assembly question, it was stated that, in 2020-21, some 2,509 pupils in Northern Ireland indicated that integrated education was their first preference. In 2021-22, 2,151 pupils did so. That is a drop of 14·27%.
You pondered the issue yourself. What should be done? No one on these Benches is blind to the need for change in education. I want to see education that is inclusive of all our young people, and I mean socially inclusive as well as religiously. The best place for this is the independent review of education, not striking out in a private Member's Bill, poorly drafted, which has had this amount of amendment and debate.

Chris Lyttle: I thank the Member for her intervention. It raises a number of points. I am concerned about measuring demand only through applications to existing schools, which, indeed, seems to be the core of our entire area-planning process.
In my view, you should consult communities to find out, as the area-planning process suggests, what type and size of school is most appropriate and what the pupil and parental demand is. If we take applications to existing schools to represent choice and demand, it is an inadequate measure to start with. It is often used in relation to support for academic selection as well, whereas it is a required process in order to have the choice of many schools that you engage with. In addition, it is my understanding that there are fewer available places in integrated education schools across Northern Ireland.
As to the constant assertion that "We want to see change", history shows that change does not come easily and that there is often opposition to it. There is often, as I mentioned earlier, that tranquillising drug: "Now is not the time", "You need to slow down", "We are not ready", "Incremental, interim change is best", and "Wait for the next review."
I am proud that Kellie Armstrong MLA has undertaken a challenge to bring forward change. As we keep saying, and as Kellie has said, it is a very focused change, and it will enhance the way in which pupil and parental demand for integrated education is identified, assessed and met, further to a number of cross-party, Executive or independent reviews that call for this type of change.
I am glad to support the amendments, as I have set out, on behalf of the Alliance Party, and I continue to support the passage of the Integrated Education Bill.

Harry Harvey: I will make a brief contribution on this group.
First, in relation to the funding of the education estate, amendment Nos 5 and 6 speak to the "overall sustainability" of the school estate. I appreciate the intention of the Member with these amendments, but they fly in the face of the clear outworkings of the Bill generally.
As the Minister rightly pointed out during the group 1 debate, many see the Bill as a mechanism for progress and moving forward, but that is not the case. The Bill will place an unworkable burden on the Department, its resources, staff and funding. Sustainability will definitely be affected by the legislation, and amendment Nos 5 and 6 hardly scratch the surface of the negative impact on sustainability that will be created as a result.
No amount of legislation supporting the integrated sector will change the decision of parents and pupils as to what school they attend. Are we seriously moving towards a situation in which educational funding will be channelled away from the majority in favour of the minority? That is not sustainable, let alone fair or equitable. In the promotion of the Bill, its sponsor and supporters talk about how this is simply a levelling of the playing field. How can that be, when the Department's new duties and the benefits of the Bill apply only to integrated schools? Where are the benefits of this levelling for controlled or maintained schools?
The amendments tabled by the SDLP, particularly amendment No 11, show where its focus is. There seems to be a fixation on supporting the smallest sectors, whilst pretending that the main sectors do not exist. I am sure that the maintained sector would dearly love the SDLP to speak up for it as much as it is sticking up for the Irish-medium sector at this stage of the Bill. In these amendments, we see further work by the House to establish and solidify an educational hierarchy that will severely hinder the 93% of children who attend controlled and maintained schools.
The amendments in this group do little to alter what has been bad legislation from its inception, a fact that is evident not least from the necessity for it to be continually rehashed at every stage of the legislative process. When those within the integrated sector itself are not even fully supportive of the Bill, then neither should we be.

Robin Newton: Like my colleagues, I accept the best of intentions of those who have proposed the group 2 amendments, which relate to "Consultation, strategy and decision-making". I accept that the amendments have been tabled with the best of intentions. I particularly accept those best intentions in relation to amendment Nos 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19. I accept that what is being done with those amendments is being done to address concerns that have been expressed by this side of the Chamber; thankfully, others are now catching up on that matter.
However, as has been said, I do not think that the Bill can be made good, even with the best of intentions. In particular, Dolores Kelly made a comment in her remarks. It is clear that the Bill is still concerned with encouraging, facilitating and, now, supporting integrated education — one sector — but that it is completely unconcerned about the implications for the other 93% of our children who do not attend integrated schools. I have the greatest respect for the integrated sector and the history of what it did. It struck out in difficult times and made significant progress in what it did. In processing the Bill, however, we cannot put into legislation law that will favour one sector and exclude the other sectors from the full benefits.
The Chair of the Education Committee, Mr Lyttle, commented about the moderator raising the concern:
"is this ... the right time to bring about ... significant change in education?"
He omitted to say that, earlier in that article, the moderator, representing the Presbyterian Church, which plays a significant role in education in the controlled sector, also referred to the shared education sector. The moderator indicated:
"The development of Shared Education has further enriched the experience of children and young people."
Before asking the question of whether this is the right way to proceed, the moderator also said:
"with the Independent Review of Education underway, to push for this change in law at this stage seems hasty".
That case has been argued on this side of the Chamber since the Bill was introduced.
Mr Sheehan kindly allowed me an intervention. He then came back to me and asked whether I wanted another intervention. I was waiting at that stage for you to call me, Mr Speaker, but I did not catch your eye. I will reply to the point that Mr Sheehan made. I asked him whether he knew how many empty desks there were in the integrated sector. At this time, there are 3,000 empty desks in integrated schools.
Mr Sheehan also raised the issue of responses that have come in to the various clauses. He said that people were contacting him from outside his constituency but indicating that they were constituents. I can assume only that the same thing that happened to me was happening to him. As a member of the Education Committee, I was contacted by people from all over Northern Ireland. They raised questions about the various clauses and, indeed, some of the amendments that we see today that were giving them concern.

Pat Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Robin Newton: I will give way.

Pat Sheehan: I should probably also have pointed out that some of the emails that I received, even within the past week or two, were still talking about a clause in the first draft of the Bill that stated that there would be a presumption that every new school would be an integrated school. That is long gone. It has nothing to do with the Bill now. That has been gone since the start. Even the sponsor said that it was a clumsy clause that should not have been there. I do not know who has been informing the people who were sending emails, but they are certainly misinformed.

Robin Newton: I thank the Member for his intervention. I am not aware that any of the more recent emails that I received claimed that that was the case. There can be no doubt in Members' minds that the various clauses that we are addressing have not addressed that in the minds of principals, educational bodies, CCMS, the controlled sector or, indeed, parents. When parents write to you, as dozens of them have done — you have had dozens write to you, as have we all — to say:
"As you are, in no doubt, aware, there has been no direct consultation with schools, parents or the community on this Bill",
you know that it is on the minds of parents who are concerned about the future of their children's education. They go on to say:
"We firmly believe that all children and young people should be educated together. This is happening in my child's school and in the nursery unit and across other controlled schools every day. This Bill ignores that fact. It is inequitable and prioritises one type of school."
In all the time that we have been debating the Bill, the message has not gone out to parents that any of the clauses that we are debating addresses their concerns.

Rosemary Barton: Will the Member give way?

Robin Newton: I will give way to the gracious lady.

Rosemary Barton: Thank you. In Dungannon, we have a primary school that has pupils of 22 different nationalities. They speak 22 languages. Surely, that is an integrated school, where everybody is educated together, enjoys each other's company and learns from one another. Does the Member agree that that is true integrated education?

Robin Newton: I thank the Member for that piece of information. Indeed, the situation that she has outlined in Dungannon is replicated across Northern Ireland.
I know from contact with principals in east Belfast how insulted they feel that their efforts around integrated education in order to bring children together and ensure that their school is open to all are not being appreciated.

Kellie Armstrong: Thank you very much for giving way. Throughout this debate and other debates, there has been an assertion that the term "integrated schools" can be applied to anything. Does the Member agree that, in the 1989 Order, it states that, to be deemed an integrated school, the Department requires schools to go through the transformation process or to become a grant-maintained integrated school?
It is laid down in the 1989 Order that only those schools that achieve and complete that status can legally be called integrated schools, while others use that term. Sharing is absolutely wonderful, and super-mixed schools are fantastic, but does the Member agree that the 1989 Order defines what an integrated school is after it has completed a process?

Robin Newton: I am not quite sure what point the Member is making, but I have already paid tribute to the integrated movement and what it has achieved in its sector and the difficulties that it had in establishing the sector.
I will finish with this because I think that nearly everything that can be said has been said. I had to look up the word "oxymoron" earlier because when I looked at amendment No 11 to clause 8, page 4, line 16, I saw the insertion to be:
"an Irish-medium school which comes into existence after this Act receives Royal Assent."
I never thought that I would see the phrase "Irish-medium school" and "Royal Assent" in the same line.

Kellie Armstrong: [Inaudible.]

Robin Newton: I say that only in jest. We are working towards law that will be set in place and will disadvantage some sectors of our community. We want each sector, whether it is the controlled sector, the Catholic maintained sector, the Irish-medium sector or the integrated sector, to stand in its own right and receive favourable support from our education system.

Alex Maskey: I was getting worried there that you were going to tell us that oxymoron was a new variant of COVID-19.
[Laughter.]

Justin McNulty: It is good to hear the Members opposite debating as Gaeilge. Following on from something that a Member said previously, the SDLP speaks for all sectors. We speak for fairness and equality because that is who we are.
I will speak on amendment Nos 11 and 18. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. Following the publication of the Bill and after the amendments made at Consideration Stage, it immediately became obvious that, as a result of what we would recognise as an unintended consequence, potential new schools in the Irish-medium sector would be caught up in the new consultation and reporting process in a way that was probably never intended by the Bill sponsor.
Indeed, the Bill sponsor had indicated under her original proposals for all new schools to be presumed integrated and that Irish-medium schools be considered as a special circumstance and excluded from provisions for integrated education.
Following representations from Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta, it indicated that, as the Bill emerged from Consideration Stage, it was going to create a conflicting statutory duty on the Department of Education as the Department already has a statutory duty to encourage and facilitate the development of Irish-medium education.
Indeed, the UK has a treaty-based commitment to the Irish language more generally, including undertakings under article 8 of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which already apply to the Irish language in the North. Therefore, the SDLP decided to table the amendment. It is a small but significant amendment for Irish language schools.
What is more, it is fully in keeping with the Bill sponsor's declared intention of recognising the special circumstances pertaining to the Irish-medium sector. It remains to be seen whether the amendment will address all the issues that may emerge when the Bill's provisions are rolled out as an Act. However, the SDLP sees it as an important first step and will have no fear of returning to the House to seek fresh redress on behalf of the Irish-medium sector, should there be good cause. We stand for equality and have a bone-deep desire to see our children as equals. Mol an óige agus tiocfaidh sí.
I move to amendment No 18. The House is well aware that numerous pieces of legal advice pointed to significant drafting errors in the Bill. In some instances, the errors would bring confusion about the Bill's intentions to such an extent that legal challenges would be likely to follow. As the official record shows, that presented major problems for the Education Committee when it conducted its scrutiny role. It is beholden on the House to ensure that only good legislation is passed. In bringing such a significant number of amendments to the House, the SDLP's intention is to address as many of those drafting problems as possible, thus enabling integrated education to benefit and more parents to realise their preferences for their children. In pursuit of that goal, we tabled amendment No 18.
As clause 11 of the Bill stands, references to teacher training are divided over subsections (g) and (h). In particular, subsection (h) involves the training of very diverse groups of people with significantly different but important roles in schools and in support of schools. It is eminently sensible to group, in all instances, the totality of training for the professional teaching staff who are to undergo initial teacher training and continuous professional development, so that all their integrated education training needs can be specified and catered for. That is the purpose of amendment No 18.

Jim Allister: In the group I will focus my remarks on amendment No 14. The response to that amendment from the Bill sponsor and her supporters takes us to the very heart of what the Bill is about. Amendment No 14 attempts to put into the Bill the rational provision that any:
"funding commitments included in the integrated education strategy must be made without detriment to other education sectors."
The Bill sponsor opposes that. Her supporters oppose that. They are saying clearly to the House that their ambition and the intent of the Bill is, in fact, to provide for integrated education in a manner that brings detriment to the other sectors. If that were not so, that amendment could be accepted. The very rejection of the amendment is confirmation of what the Bill is about: it is about the supremacy and primacy of the integrated sector on all fronts, including funding. Hence the declared intent to reject that which will inject into the Bill equality and equity in regard to not causing detriment to other education sectors. You cannot oppose amendment No 14 out of one side of your mouth and say out of the other side, "But we are not trying to do something that detriments existing sectors". The attitude to amendment No 14 lets the cat totally out of the bag. It is clear that the intent and determination of the Bill and its sponsor are to create the very detriment that they deny, which the denial of amendment No 14 confirms.

Alex Maskey: I call the Minister of Education, Michelle McIlveen, to respond to the debate.

Michelle McIlveen: In the group 2 debate, we are considering amendments that would place context and balance on the requirement for:
"identifying, assessing, monitoring and aiming to meet the demand".
Some of the group 2 amendments that we are debating certainly aim to improve the Bill and mitigate its unfettered impact. I thank Members of the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP for attempting to do that. Unfortunately, I still consider us to be at the point where no amendments can make the Bill workable.
Amendment Nos 5 and 6, for example, recognise that no sector or school operates in isolation, and I welcome the fact that the Ulster Unionist Party is attempting to bring sustainability into the Bill. Without sustainable schools in whatever sector, our children cannot access the high-quality teaching and learning that they need and deserve. Even with those amendments, the Bill remains defective.
Amendment No 12 recognises that burdening the Department of Education with onerous duties that also bring cost pressures is not strategic; it is the opposite.
Amendment No 13 reminds Members of all section 75 duties and that the Bill has come to Further Consideration Stage with no equality impact assessment having been done. Instead, that is something else that the Department of Education is expected to pick up if the Bill becomes law. Frankly, at that point, it is too late. The Department will be hamstrung by the statutory duties in the Bill that clearly should have been considered in equality terms long before passing it into law.
Amendment No 14 would provide protection fundamentally for the children in every other type of school. It is shameful that an amendment to mitigate detriment is needed, but it is needed, and it is disappointing that the Bill sponsor and others are not supporting it. I do not need to elaborate on the comments that were made by Mr Allister, which I support.
Amendment Nos 15 and 16 would prevent an expectation that the Department of Education should set targets for the number of schools that are transforming and the number of new integrated schools that are established. The Department of Education should not be subject to any such expectation.
Amendment Nos 18, 19 and 20 recognise that how schools operate in reality is not reflected in the Bill.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McGlone] in the Chair)
All the group 2 amendments reiterate and highlight that there are significant flaws and shortcomings in the Bill. Such amendments, frankly, would not be needed at Further Consideration Stage if the Bill were not so fundamentally defective. They seek to mitigate the risk to the Education budget and, therefore, to children's education, which that budget pays for, in order to make sure that it is managed in some way. Should the amendments be needed? No. Are they needed? I will reiterate that the fact that they have had to be tabled at this point in proceedings highlights the significant flaws and shortcomings in the Bill. That situation could and should have been avoided had the amendments that I tabled at Consideration Stage been adopted.
My view remains clear. This is a flawed and defective Bill. It is far-reaching, and schools from other sectors are writing to me saying that they feel devalued by those who support the Bill. Through the Bill, the House is saying to those who cater for roughly 93% of our children, "You are not valued. You are not good enough to have a Bill for your sector". Are we to bring forward a Bill for each sector? Will we enshrine silo sectoral planning in legislation when we have spent over 10 years trying to break that silo planning cycle through area planning? Should that happen right at a time when all those involved in area planning are undertaking innovation labs to look at exploring community solutions and co-designing proposals to look at better meeting the needs of education provision in rural areas? At what point do we come back to a common-sense approach?
Amendment No 11 attempts to recognise the potential impact on the Irish-medium sector, and, obviously, that is laudable, but it is a flawed Bill. I know that Members have been petitioned by education stakeholders on the flaws in the Bill and on their real concerns about the impact on workload, particularly for those in the integrated sector, who would have to prove their ethos when no other sector has to do that in law; about equity and fairness for those the Irish-medium, controlled, maintained and voluntary sectors; and, fundamentally, about the dismantling of the area planning process. Until now, everyone had a seat at the table and equal opportunity to bring forward solutions for the benefit of all. That process has now been compromised, and, if the Bill goes through, it will be irretrievably compromised. It will take years to recover, if it does at all, because sectors who were and are working collaboratively through the area planning process, including the integrated sector through NICIE, will retreat to their corners. All the while, officials will be diverted to strategies and reporting at an additional cost, removing their focus from the potentially innovative approaches that may flow from the independent review of education and removing their focus from improving things for pupils and staff in all our schools.
"Levelling up" seems to be the latest term used in the media promotion of the Bill. In plain terms, the Bill will require the Department of Education to set targets and benchmarks and create catchment areas in which to report for integrated education only. It will require the Department of Education to prepare, publish and maintain a strategy for the integrated sector only and for a report to be laid in the Assembly. It will require the Department to make regulations about integrated education only. It will require the Department to include provision for resources, quantify funding commitments —

Chris Lyttle: Will the Minister give way briefly?

Michelle McIlveen: No, if you do not mind.
— and identify respective resources for facilitating the establishment of new integrated schools, the expansion of existing integrated schools and the transformation of existing schools into integrated schools. All those requirements are in the Bill alongside many others. None of them applies as a statutory duty to any other sector: not Irish-medium, not controlled, not maintained and not the voluntary sector: no other sector. "Level" is defined as having the same relative position, not in front of or behind. How, precisely, is any of what I have just described the same?
Despite all the rhetoric about the integrated sector not being on a level playing field at present, I assert that it is. There is nothing to prevent proposals being made for developments for primary and post-primary schools to meet all the unmet need. Why, then, has the focus been on statutory preschools? Perhaps because 60% of integrated schools are not oversubscribed. Perhaps because 97% of requests to vary admissions enrolments from integrated schools are granted. Perhaps because the vast majority of the 60 development proposals over the last 10 years have been approved. Despite all that, 3,000 places are available in our integrated schools, sitting there ready to be filled by those who wish to attend an integrated school. Is it perhaps because the demand is just simply not as great as is being portrayed?
I have set out in the group 1 debate and throughout the process the real impact on the education budget, with examples of real-money costs. There is one finite budget. Programmes that are designed to be flexible and agile to respond to the needs of children regardless of which type of school they attend but are not statutory will be able to access funding only once all the provisions of the Integrated Education Bill are paid for and from that one education budget. Placing a narrative that the common funding formula will not be altered by the Integrated Education Bill is the real misrepresentation. Placing a narrative that the Bill will create savings is delusional. The Bill will cost. Anyone who doubts that needs to go back and read it and not take at face value the online narrative or, indeed, the spin in the Chamber.

Kellie Armstrong: Before I move on to the amendments, it would be worthwhile to put on the record the percentages of all places in schools that are unfilled, just so that the House knows. In 2021, 12·4% of places in integrated primary schools were unfilled; in non-integrated primary schools, the figure was 19·4%; in integrated post-primary schools, it was 10·3%; and in non-integrated post-primary schools, it was 14·7%.
I turn to the amendments. To be honest — I said this to Mr Butler — I am delighted that amendment Nos 5 and 6 would add:
"within the context of area planning and the overall sustainability of the school estate".
Protecting unsustainable schools in any sector is not workable, so I will support amendment Nos 5 and 6. They are sensible, and I thank the Ulster Unionists for tabling them.
Amendment No 11 from the SDLP confused me slightly. However, I was delighted to be able to speak to the SDLP on the matter, and I now get it absolutely. We do not want to have the issue of an Irish-medium school that is being taken forward being confused with the consultation. My confusion was not with the wording; it was that, when I met the Department, it said that the education bodies as now defined by the Minister's amendment — the Department of Education and the Education Authority — do not take forward any other schools such as Irish-medium schools. However, I will absolutely support that.
Amendment No 12 is in Robbie Butler's name, but I believe that Mr Aiken will move it. I do not support it, because I believe that changing "must" to "may" waters down the provisions in the strategy that we are trying to bring in.
On amendment No 13, I agree with Dolores Kelly, who talked about adding the new paragraph requiring the Department to:
"have due regard to the provisions of Section 75".
The Department already has to comply with section 75. I was therefore a bit confused by that. I have no issue, to be honest, with its being included, but I think that amendment No 13 could lead to a judicial review, because, if the Department has to take section 75 into consideration for integrated education, I can imagine that the family of a child who wishes to get into a maintained school but does not get in will be looking to section 75 to see how that decision was taken. The amendment does not add to or detract from the Bill, however.
I oppose amendment Nos 15 and 16. We hear every day in the House about how data is so important. I will bring Members back to the Bill as amended at Consideration Stage. Clause 9(3), which deals with the integrated education strategy, states:
"Targets and benchmarks may, in particular, refer to",
and then it lists what they may refer to, including paragraphs (c) and (d), which the Ulster Unionists would like to remove from the Bill. To be honest, if those paragraphs are removed, the Department can bring targets and benchmarks for those numbers of schools and new integrated schools back in again anyway. I do not agree with the Ulster Unionists, because I think that any approach to counting and including data is important.

Chris Lyttle: I thank the Member for giving way. Does she agree that it is quite concerning and shocking that the Education Minister and, it seems, the Ulster Unionist Party have difficulty with the establishment of targets, benchmarks and actions for integrated education, given that the Executive action plan titled 'Tackling Paramilitary Activity, Criminality and Organised Crime' from 2016 agrees that parties in the Executive should:
"to measurably reduce segregation in education ... set ambitious targets and milestones ... as quickly as possible."?
The Integrated Education Bill is one modest way in which to achieve that aim.

Kellie Armstrong: I absolutely agree with you. It is shocking.
Mr Aiken said that amendment No 17 will not be moved. I have to say that, when I spoke to Mr Butler about that amendment, I wondered why the Department would not have due regard to the Assembly or a Committee of the Assembly. I said to Mr Butler — I think that this shocked him — that, at long last, recommendations of the Assembly and Committees would legally be required, under that amendment, to be taken forward. There have been so many recommendations on integrated education over the years, and it would be nice to see them moved forward. Amendment No 17 will not be moved, however.
Amendment No 18 adds "inclusive and diverse classes" after "diversity", and I absolutely agree with Mr McNulty: why not put it in? It gives clarification and can only help. The SDLP has said that it will not move amendment Nos 19 and 20.
I thank everyone for their amendments. They have certainly helped me. I worked with others on some of the amendments. I am delighted that the Minister, the DUP and the Ulster Unionists are taking part in the democratic process today. I can only hope that the threat from parties that do not seem to be getting their way to use a petition of concern to remove the democratic vote from the Final Stage of the Bill will not come to pass.

Steve Aiken: I thank the many Members who spoke to the various amendments in the second group.
Many of the questions have already been answered, but there was a question about increasing the speed of our processes. I will therefore make a few short, sharp remarks, because everybody has iterated what we need to do.
It has always been the goal of the Ulster Unionist Party to have a single education system that is naturally and organically integrated. We are supporters of organic integration as the best way in which to take the stigma out of engaging in a cross-community manner, and the best way in which to do that is to get people mixing from a young age. It has always been the Ulster Unionist position that we should be educating our kids together, and that is what we need to do. We want to see high educational standards in our country and school places available for all, where there is appropriate demand. It is our view that parental choice and parental preference is the true measure of educational demand, and that should be respected in any proposed changes to our education system.
We sought to work with the Bill sponsor at all stages of the Bill because we believe that this place works best when people from all backgrounds work together in a proactive way. However, we want to see good legislation: we do not want to rush things and end up with wide and far-reaching ramifications. To that end, if the Bill sidelines or disadvantages other education sectors, even if that is an entirely unintended consequence, I am afraid that the Ulster Unionist Party will not be able to support the Bill at Final Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No 6 made:
In page 2, line 35, after “education” insert—“within the context of area planning and the overall sustainability of the school estate”. — [Dr Aiken.]Clause 6 (Duties of Department and Authority relating to the development etc. of integrated education)
Amendment No 7 proposed:
In page 3, line 4, leave out “and facilitate” and insert “, facilitate and support”. — [Ms Armstrong.]Question put, That the amendment be made.

Patsy McGlone: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 113(5)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division. I remind all Members to follow the instructions of the Lobby Clerks and to respect the need for social distancing.
The Assembly divided.
 Ayes 48; Noes 38
 AYES 
 Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Miss Woods
 Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Lyttle, Mr McNulty
 NOES 
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
 Tellers for the Noes: Mr Harvey, Mr Newton

Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendment No 8 proposed:
In page 3, line 7, leave out “and facilitate” and insert “, facilitate and support”. — [Ms Armstrong.]Question put, That the amendment be made.

Patsy McGlone: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 113(5)(b), there is agreement that we dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division. Again, I remind all Members to follow the instructions of the Lobby Clerks and to respect the need for social distancing.
The Assembly divided:
 Ayes 48; Noes 38
 AYES 
 Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Miss Woods
 Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Bradshaw, Mr Lyttle
 NOES 
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
 Tellers for the Noes: Mrs Dodds, Mr Harvey

Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendment No 9 proposed:
In page 3, line 25, after “education” insert—“including in respect of its duty to encourage, facilitate and support integrated education,”. — [Ms Armstrong.]Question put, That the amendment be made.

Patsy McGlone: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 113(5)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division. I remind all Members to follow the instructions of the Lobby Clerks and to respect the need for social distancing.
The Assembly divided:
 Ayes 48; Noes 38
 AYES 
 Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Miss Woods
 Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Bradshaw, Mr McNulty
 NOES 
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
 Tellers for the Noes: Mrs Dodds, Mr Harvey

Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 7 (General duty)
Amendment No 10 made:
In page 3, line 35, at end insert—“(2) The active fulfilment of duties in respect of support for integrated education conferred on education bodies by this Act (or regulations made under it) shall not prejudice or subordinate their duties in respect of promoting shared education or the due discharge of their continuing statutory duties under other enactments including the Shared Education (Northern Ireland) Act 2016.” — [Mrs D Kelly.]Clause 8 (New schools)
Amendment No 11 proposed:
In page 4, line 16, at end insert—“(d) an Irish-medium school which comes into existence after this Act receives Royal Assent”. — [Mr McNulty.]Question put, That the amendment be made.

Patsy McGlone: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 113(5)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division.
I remind Members to follow the instructions of the Lobby Clerks and to respect the need for social distancing.
The Assembly divided:
 Ayes 48; Noes 38
 AYES 
 Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Miss Woods
 Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Dickson, Mr McNulty
 NOES 
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
 Tellers for the Noes: Mrs Dodds, Mr Harvey

Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 9 (Integrated education strategy)
Amendment No 12 proposed:
In page 4, line 24, leave out “must” and insert “may”. — [Dr Aiken.]Question put, That the amendment be made.

Patsy McGlone: In agreement with the party Whips and in accordance with Standing Order 113(5)(b), we can dispense with the three-minute rule and move straight to the Division.
I remind Members to follow the instructions of the Lobby Clerks and to respect the need for social distancing.
The Assembly divided:
 Ayes 38; Noes 48
 AYES 
 Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
 Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Harvey, Mr Newton
 NOES 
Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Miss Woods
 Tellers for the Noes: Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment No 13 made:
In page 5, line 5, at end insert—“(g) have due regard to the provisions of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in regard to subsection (1) of this section.” — [Dr Aiken.]Amendment No 14 proposed:
In page 5, line 5, at end insert—“(2A) The provisions and funding commitments included in the integrated education strategy must be made without detriment to other education sectors.” — [Dr Aiken.]

Patsy McGlone: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 113(5)(b), there is agreement that we dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division. I remind all Members to follow the instructions of the Lobby Clerks and to respect the need for social distancing.
We have a few technical issues to get sorted out, but more of that later.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Assembly divided:
 Ayes 38; Noes 48
 AYES 
 Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
 Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Harvey, Mr Newton
 NOES 
Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Miss Woods
 Tellers for the Noes: Mr Dickson, Mr Lyttle

Question accordingly negatived.

Patsy McGlone: On account of our technical difficulties, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend for 20 minutes and to come back at around 4.10 pm.
The debate stood suspended.
The sitting was suspended at 3.50 pm and resumed at 4.15 pm.
Debate resumed.
Amendment No 15 proposed:
In page 5, line 11, leave out paragraph (c). — [Dr Aiken.]Question put, That the amendment be made.

Patsy McGlone: In accordance with Standing Order 113(5)(b), there is agreement among the party Whips that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division. I remind Members to follow the instructions of the Lobby Clerks and to respect the need for social distancing.
The Assembly divided:
 Ayes 38; Noes 48
 AYES 
 Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
 Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Harvey, Mr Newton
 NOES 
Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Miss Woods
 Tellers for the Noes: Ms Bradshaw, Mr Dickson

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Beggs] in the Chair)
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment No 16 proposed:
In page 5, line 12, leave out paragraph (d). — [Dr Aiken.]Question put, That the amendment be made.

Roy Beggs: I remind Members to follow the instructions of the Lobby Clerks and to respect the need for social distancing.
The Assembly divided:
 Ayes 38; Noes 48
 AYES 
 Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
 Tellers for the Ayes: Mrs Dodds, Mr Harvey
 NOES 
Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Miss Woods
 Tellers for the Noes: Ms Bradshaw, Mr Lyttle

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment No 17 not moved.
Clause 11 (Regulations)
Amendment No 18 made:
In page 6, line 34, after “diversity” insert “, inclusive and diverse classes”. — [Mr McNulty.]Amendment Nos 19 and 20 not moved.
Amendment No 21 proposed:
In page 7, line 12, at end insert—&quot;(3A) Provision under subsection (3) may, in particular, include supplementary, incidental or consequential amendments of any Northern Ireland legislation (including amendments equivalent or similar to those effected by sections 4 and 13).” — [Ms Armstrong.]Question put, That the amendment be made.

Roy Beggs: I remind all Members to follow the instructions of the Lobby Clerks and to respect the need for social distancing.
The Assembly divided:
 Ayes 48; Noes 38
 AYES 
 Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Miss Woods
 Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Dickson, Mr Muir
 NOES 
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
 Tellers for the Noes: Mr Harvey, Mr Newton

Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 13 (Consequential amendments)
Amendment No 22 proposed:
In page 7, line 31, after “pupils” insert—“and insert ‘and to provide support for integrated education’”. — [Ms Armstrong.]

Roy Beggs: I remind all Members to follow the instructions of the Lobby Clerks and to respect the need for social distancing.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Assembly divided:
 Ayes 48; Noes 38
 AYES 
 Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Miss Woods
 Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Bradshaw, Mr Lyttle
 NOES 
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
 Tellers for the Noes: Mrs Dodds, Mr Harvey

Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendment No 23 proposed:
In page 7, line 35, at end insert—“(2A) In Article 71(8) of that Order (Proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained integrated status) for ‘be attended by reasonable numbers of both Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils’ substitute ‘provide integrated education’.” — [Ms Armstrong.]Question put, That the amendment be made.

Roy Beggs: I remind Members to maintain social distancing during the voting and to leave a 2 metre gap.
The Assembly divided:
 Ayes 48; Noes 37
 AYES 
 Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Miss Woods
 Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Bradshaw, Mr Dickson
 NOES 
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
 Tellers for the Noes: Mr Harvey, Mr Newton

Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendment No 24 proposed:
In page 7, line 35, at end insert—“(2B) In Article 79(2) of that Order (Significant changes to grant-maintained integrated schools) for ‘be attended by reasonable numbers of both Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils’ substitute ‘provide integrated education’.” — [Ms Armstrong.]Question put, That the amendment be made.

Roy Beggs: I remind Members that they should maintain social distancing.
The Assembly divided.
 Ayes 48; Noes 37
 AYES 
 Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Miss Woods
 Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Bradshaw, Mr Lyttle
 NOES 
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
 Tellers for the Noes: Mr Harvey, Mr Newton

Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendment No 25 proposed:
In page 7, line 35, at end insert—“(2C) In Article 81(3)(d) of that Order (Withdrawal of grant by Department) for ‘attended by reasonable numbers of both Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils’ substitute ‘providing integrated education’.” — [Ms Armstrong.]Question put, That the amendment be made.

Roy Beggs: I remind Members to maintain social distancing.
The Assembly divided:
 Ayes 48; Noes 37
 AYES 
 Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Miss Woods
 Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Dickson, Mr Lyttle
 NOES 
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
 Tellers for the Noes: Mrs Dodds, Mr Harvey

Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendment No 26 proposed:
In page 7, line 35, at end insert—“(2D) In Article 88 of that Order (Management of controlled integrated schools) for ‘attract to the school reasonable numbers of both Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils’ substitute ‘ensure the provision of integrated education’.” — [Ms Armstrong.]Question put, That the amendment be made.

Roy Beggs: I remind Members to maintain social distancing.
The Assembly divided:
 Ayes 48; Noes 37
 AYES 
 Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Miss Woods
 Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Bradshaw, Mr Dickson
 NOES 
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
 Tellers for the Noes: Mr Harvey, Mr Newton

Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendment No 27 proposed:
In page 7, line 35, at end insert—“(2E) In Article 92(6) of that Order (Proposals for acquisition of controlled integrated status) for ‘be attended by reasonable numbers of both Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils’ substitute ‘provide integrated education’.” — [Ms Armstrong.]Question put, That the amendment be made.

Roy Beggs: I remind Members to maintain social distancing.
The Assembly divided:
 Ayes 48; Noes 37
 AYES 
 Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Miss Woods
 Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Bradshaw, Mr Lyttle
 NOES 
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
 Tellers for the Noes: Mrs Dodds, Mr Harvey

Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendment No 28 proposed:
In page 7, line 35, at end insert—“(2F) In Article 97 of that Order (Significant changes to controlled integrated schools) for ‘be attended by reasonable numbers of both Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils’ substitute ‘provide integrated education’.” — [Ms Armstrong.]Question put, That the amendment be made.

Roy Beggs: Maintain social distancing.
The Assembly divided:
 Ayes 48; Noes 37
 AYES 
 Dr Archibald, Ms Armstrong, Ms Bailey, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms S Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Ms Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Catney, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Ms Dillon, Ms Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Ms Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Ms Mallon, Mr Muir, Ms Á Murphy, Mr C Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Miss Reilly, Ms Rogan, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Miss Woods
 Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Dickson, Mr Lyttle
 NOES 
Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mrs Barton, Mr Beattie, Mr M Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Storey, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells
 Tellers for the Noes: Mr Harvey, Mr Newton

Question accordingly agreed to.

Roy Beggs: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Integrated Education Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. I thank Members for their patience, and our staff for their assistance through a very lengthy voting process.
Adjourned at 5.56 pm.